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:

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,

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.

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:

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:

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:

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

[paladinan]
My point was that you have a mistaken notion of "only non-Catholics think that Jesus is their Savior", as if you have some sort of copyright on the idea. The Catholic Church had that fact, 500 years before Protestantism was a twinkle in the eyes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

[metmom]
"only non-Catholics think that Jesus is their Savior"??? You put it in quotes as if I said those very words. Show me where I said that.

I put it in "scare quotes" to distance myself from the idea. (I do wish that there were some other type of quotation marks--perhaps triple marks?--because I agree, it can be confused for actual quotes.) But if that idea is so foreign to you, then why did you write this, back in #601?

Why someone would want to replace following Christ Himself for a man or organization is beyond me.

Now, unless someone hacked your account and/or commandeered your computer, and wrote those words in your stead, then you apparently believe that Catholics (perhaps among others--but you specifically mention Catholicism in that comment) "want to replace following Christ Himself for a man or organization". (You also said that "it's beyond you", and I can hardly blame you: it's beyond me, and beyond any faithful Catholic, why anyone would dare do that. Needless to say, faithful and well-informed Catholics do NOT do that, and the Church condemns any such thing. I wonder what you had in mind, when you wrote this.)

But tease this out: if you believe your statement, then you apparently think that Catholics do NOT think Jesus is their Savior... or else, why would they abandon Him for "a man or organization"?

I'd also direct you to my comment about "owning logical deductions" (#655), which addresses the phenomenon of dropping suggestions, but then demanding to be quoted when the logical deductions of one's comments are attributed to one. "I never said that Socrates was mortal! (etc.)"

My time is very limited, so I cannot offer a full response to your encyclopedic post. If I did have unlimited time, no doubt I would, but sadly I have a life outside of FR. :)

However, I do note a few things. First, locking in too tight on specific translations for a given word can take you away from the semantic idea. That's why Louw-Nida's lexicon based on semantic domains is so useful, and there we find exartidzo, the amplified form of artios translated as "thoroughly furnished," positively associated with the idea of sufficiency:

75.4 ἄρτιος, α, ον: pertaining to being qualified to perform some function—‘qualified, proficient.’ ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος ‘in order that the man of God may be qualified’ 2 Tm 3:17.

75.5 ἐξαρτίζωb; καταρτίζωa; κατάρτισις, εως f; καταρτισμός, οῦ m: to make someone completely adequate or sufficient for something—‘to make adequate, to furnish completely, to cause to be fully qualified, adequacy.’

So again, if the man or woman of God produced by the use of Scripture is sufficient to every aspect of the Christian life, then what is external to Scripture is not necessary to produce that same result. Otherwise you have Paul making a dangerously false assertion.

As for sentiments versus axioms, I hope we can agree it is self-evident (axiomatic) that if there is a God, His word trumps every other offered authority. This has nothing to do with sentiment. I believe it was Aristotle who said that circular reasoning is fine as long as the circles are small enough. It is self-evident, in logical terms, that if there were a Supreme Being, by virtue of being supreme, He would have supreme authority in His truth claims over all others. To say otherwise is to invalidate His supremacy.

So no, it is your construct that I am somehow required to show this supremacy by a formal statement. You can believe that all day long, and if it prevents you from accepting Sola Scriptura, that is a tragic outcome. But it is not one I can help you with. I do not know how one can even be a theist without accepting the premise that God's word trumps everything else.

As for James 1:4, the emphasis there is that by faith we have patience, and patience leads to our maturity, our completeness. Again from Louw-Nida we learn that the sense of teleios is not so much breadth of completeness as with artios, but more the idea of something running the full course, more longitudinal:

68.23 τέλειοςd, α, ον: pertaining to that which is fully accomplished or finished—‘complete, finished.’ ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω ‘but be sure that patience completes its work’ Jas 1:4.

Which fits well with the context. James wants his readers to stay with the program. He is not talking about the sufficiency of Scripture, so his statement, however strongly worded, is unrelated to that, but rather is geared toward the benefits of endurance in the faith. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

BTW, it is interesting that we learn of this maturity and it's importance to our wholeness as believers through ... wait for it ... Scripture! In other words, James is actually demonstrating the sufficiency of the divine word as spoken of in 2 Timothy 16. The sufficiency of Scripture stands as the logical precedent to the divine truth he is proclaiming. James is just some guy talking, and his words mean nothing, unless he is speaking to us the God-breathed truth. So virtually anything in Scripture anywhere that is presented as necessary to our completeness is not an addition in parallel to Scripture, but is logically predicated on the very sufficiency of Scripture revealed in Paul's statements in 2 Timothy 3:14-17.

Which gets me back to one important point. You said this:

(i.e. it proves that two distinct ideas--Scripture, and steadfastness--are both SOLELY sufficient for salvific purposes... which is logically absurd),

This is an odd one, because 2 Timothy 3:16 and James 1:4 do not stand for strictly salvific purposes. They both assume a salvific state, and have moved past that to either completeness in the sense of breadth of divine information (2 Timothy 3:16-17), or completeness in the sense of perseverance to the end, coming to maturity. So I'm not sure where you're getting that from. To verify the salvific effect of Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:14 stands pretty much on it's own (within context of course):

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2 Timothy 3:15)

Again, all hedging aside, Paul is unambiguous here. You'd have to be in a full run from the plain sense of this to miss it. However much you want to debate the canon, the Scriptures have their own inherent power, whether it is recognized or not by us mortals, and one of those powers is to make us wise to the salvation that can be had by faith in Jesus Christ. Many souls will reach heaven before we do, who had less Scripture than we do, but they believed what they had, and God saved them. Everything necessary to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ can be found in the written word of God, or Paul is a liar. I say he was telling the truth. What say you?

Peace,

SR

[citations of John 3:3-8, John 5:24, John 6:40, John 11:25-26]

How can *HAS eternal life* not mean *has eternal life*?

In this case, you're glossing over the pregnant word "believe", which involves far more than mere mental assent. It also involves obedience (cf. John 3:36), corporal works of mercy (cf. Matthew 25:31-46), and a host of other things.

I could ask, in the same way, how you can think that "This is My Body", "My Flesh is real food", "My Blood is real drink", etc., apparently doesn't mean "This is My Body", etc.

The only way to not read it as it stands is to *interpret* it. Besides, I'm not *interpreting* the Scripture, I'm explaining it. :)

:) Mm-hmm. Dear lady, when you "go beyond what is written" in order to impart its meaning, you are interpreting it (i.e. translating its meaning for those who allegedly do not understand). Every good teacher does that; not only is it neither bad nor forbidden, but it's absolutely necessary.

When people came to Jesus, did He give them a theology exam? Did He demand that they jump through hoops to earn salvation?

Do you see the dark, pejorative words you're using to slant your portrayal, here? I could do the very same thing: "When Jesus came, did He abandon people to millenia of contradictory teaching about Him? Did the Holy Spirit simply not care when two distinct groups of people say 'No, you're wrong, and only if you do what WE suggest, will you be saved'?" You're absolving yourself of all responsibility to prove what you say, here...

Or did He say to them *Your faith has saved you. Go in peace*?

He said that to some people, certainly. Did you notice that their faith was actualized by works (e.g. touching His garments, etc.)?

God wants relationship with His creation, not fear of damnation based performance.

This, from one who believes that non-Christians are damned to hell, even if they were innocently denied the Gospel?

He made salvation simple enough for a child to grasp it and told us that unless we become like little children, we would never enter the kingdom of heaven.

We are to be as INNOCENT as children, yes... but not as ignorant as children. He never said that believing falsehoods about Him was somehow irrelevant and "perfectly safe"; it matters a great deal.

So how does that square with the RCC demanding works?

JESUS demands works... unless you prefer to be a goat. (Cf. Matthew 25)

Many years ago I reached a point of desperation where I finally told God, *If you can straighten out this mess of a life of mine, you can have it. I'll do anything you want, even become a missionary and go to Africa cause I'd rather be happy doing what You want me to, then keep going the way I am.* He took me up on that. Some time later someone was telling me about accepting Christ into my heart and I didn't understand what he meant in the least, but something in my heart was stirred and inside I thought, *THAT'S IT!!! That's what I want.* Then I prayed *Jesus, I don't know what it means to ask You into my heart as an act of will, but I will you in.* Not exactly a *sinner's prayer*, no altar call, it happened at work, but the change was immediate and dramatic. There is nothing else except the fact that I was born again,born spiritually, that could explain the complete change in focus of my entire life. In an instant. I didn't even have to try.

In all seriousness: I'm very happy for you, and what happened to you was a wonderful thing. A personal relationship with Jesus Christ (and with His children) is the whole point of our existence, after all... and I'll be quite honest: many Catholics (at least in the USA, with which I'm most familiar) have no clue about that, and it breaks my heart. But here's where I'll disagree with your notion: you attribute this "rupture" to Catholicism ITSELF, not to a NEGLECT of it, ignorance of it, refusal to implement it, etc. That's where you're mistaken. You're wrong to judge a Church by those members who don't LIVE it. Anything--ANYTHING--needs to be judged on the basis of what happens when it's actually USED. Hammers aren't judged on the word of those who've never hit a nail in their lives; car performance isn't judged on the word of those who insist on filling the gas tank with molasses. The Church should not be judged on the basis of those who--willfully or ignorantly--do not live Her teachings and practices.

In short: you need to make up your mind. You can try to attack the Church for Her TEACHING (in which case, I'll respond with theology--and it'll do no one any good for you to complain about "how the Church is making things complicated", since you'll have started the theology discussion in the first place), or you can try to criticize Her MEMBERS for not living up to the teachings (and I'll join you with full voice, in doing so!); but you cannot waffle between the two, advocating "simple sentimentalism" on one hand while "criticizing the complications and details of theology" on the other.

You know what? I really believe that God doesn't care nearly as much as all the crossed t's and dotted i's of having out theology nailed down, as He cares about a heart that is unreservedly following after Him.

In one sense, that's very true: the whole point of life is to know God, to love Him, to serve Him, and to be forever happy with Him in Heaven. If that was all you were advocating, I probably wouldn't have said "word one" to you about the matter. But you took it upon yourself to attack the Catholic Church (ostensibly because of Her so-called "false teachings"--which is a matter for theology, and not a matter for "resting in the Lord's embrace") and to try to lead people OUT of the Church on that basis... so it sounds odd to hear you now say that the details of religion don't matter, and that one's theology need not be "nailed down". What, are you now welcoming of worship of the Holy Eucharist? Are you indifferent to the veneration shown to the Blessed Virgin Mary? Are you now sanguine about prayers for the dead? If not, then this appeal to "simplity and unimportance of rules" means something quite more than what you've presented, here.

It's HIS responsibility to straighten out people's whacked out theology and He will.

So... why are you not (and I say this as a hypothetical, not as a suggestion) abstaining from theological debate (because that is what you're doing, here) and quietly praying for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and all others... and letting God sort out the details? (I assure you, I'll never say "no" to prayers of any sort from you--God knows that I need them!) But you exert yourself mightily in the theological cause "against Rome". Why, if your own standards say that you should drop it and leave it to Him?

Re: your final comments (about your fallibility, struggles, trust in God, etc.)... I can only say, "God bless and reward you." It's both beautiful and good, and it's edifying for those who're on the journey with you.

Re: having a life outside of FR... :) Yep.. I hear you! And again: don’t feel badly about leaving some, or much (or even all), of my posts without comment; I ask only that, when people comment to me, that they consider (to the extent that it’s humanly feasible) what I’ve already written, so that I needn’t repeat myself TOO many times.

One quick point (and then I need to dash, myself): the whole gist of our conversation revolved around the alleged certainty that “Scripture alone” was “sufficient” (see above for my requests for qualifiers on that one!). I assert that (among other things), to the extent that interpretation of Scripture is needed AT ALL, Scripture CANNOT be “solely sufficient”.

All appeals to Scripture being “sufficient” in any way at all (short of mere tautologies—e.g. “[x] is sufficiently [x]-like!”) depend, at very least, on two things:

1) clear definition of “what is Scripture” and “what is not” (that is not the case, between us—and sola Scriotura is utterly helpless to supply it; one cannot give oneself what one does not yet have)

2) guarantee of freedom from essential error (no “sola Scriptura” adherent can claim this, since “sola Scriptura” has led to flat contradictions between “sola Scriptura” adherents, all of whom insist that “the Holy Spirit” led them to their particular conclusions... after much study, scholarship, fervent prayer, etc.)

Do you notice that your argument is hinging on your choice of Greek lexicographer? And yet, how can you prove that Louw-Nida’s lexicon is better than mine (especially since I haven’t even told you what lexicon I’m using), and that its definitions capture the Scriptural meaning correctly (and mine do not)? Scripture certainly won’t tell you that... which means that you’re appealing to something outside of Scripture in order to make that determination (and I don’t see how you could ever be certain of your conclusions).

Also: do you note that your statements are all estimations, probabilities, and assertions that the text and terms “suggest” this-and-that? This is guesswork, and you’ve also abandoned the very principle (i.e. sola Scriptura) which you’re trying to prove, while trying to prove it! (I don’t blame you, since using [x] to prove [x] is known as a “circular argument”, and it’s logically invalid.) This is one of MANY reasons (many of which were stated by Catholics in this thread) why “sola Scriptura” is, in addition to being unbiblical, also logically untenable.

Salvation is by faith alone. Scripture is clear on that.

Working out our salvation and God’s plan for our lives once we’re saved, DOES require works.

When we are admonished to *work out our salvation with fear and trembling*, that isn’t working to earn it or keep it. It’s more working through it, being conformed to the image of Christ, showing Christ to the world.

There would be many blessings here on earth that we would miss if we did not do works. There would be many rewards in Heaven for faithful service that we would not get if we did no works.

Ephesians tells us that there are works that God prepared in advance for us to do, to walk in them. And I am convinced that there are things God has for me to do for Him that if I don’t do them, nobody else will.

The way we show God and the love of Christ to a lost and dying world is to do works. We are commanded to do them as well. It’s also a matter of obedience.

God did not save us just to give us a comfortable life and keep us busy until He takes us to heaven. He saved us and commissioned each and every one of us to GO, and preach the gospel and make disciples. To bring and show Christ to the world. And that is what works do.

But for all that, they are not necessary for our salvation, either to earn it or keep it.

I have asked whether you believe the word of God necessarily is superior to all other sources of truth claims. I am not seeing your answer to that.

I'd replied (at least once--#699, second reply, item #1) by stating that you needed to define "Word of God" more exactly... since it can refer to Jesus, Himself, or to Scripture, or to Sacred Tradition, or to any combination of the three. If you mean the first, then my answer is a resounding 'YES!'; if you mean the second, then I would say, "no, since it's equal in status with Sacred Tradition, and it must be interpreted, along with Sacred Tradition, by the Church Whom Jesus established for that purpose"; and I assume you wouldn't have meant the third.

Because if we do not start in God's word, we must start in ourselves; there are no other choices.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "starting in ourselves"; can you clarify/unpack that? And again: do you mean "Scripture"? And when referring to Scripture, do you mean the 66-book Protestant Bible?

The axioms I wish to secure between us are things any two who believe in God, who have arrived at that belief by faith, ought to be able to affirm without hesitation.

I would say "arrived at that belief by faith and reason"--I follow the scholastic motto of "fides quaerens intellectum": "faith seeking understanding". But more on that, in a moment.

I honestly do not understand what is so hard about a Christian conceding the word of God trumps all other sources of truth claims.

Because, among other reasons: Protestants (and those who've inherited Protestant theology, but who disown the title) often restrict "the Word of God" to the mere WRITTEN Word of God (and a fragment of the full Bible, at that), and they have no provision (aside from personal opinion, whether individual or collective) for assuring the veracity and accuracy of any APPEAL to that "Word of God". Also, despite all poetry and metaphor, Scripture (and I assume you mean that, and the 66-book Protestant version of it) cannot definitively "speak for itself", in the sense that it cannot clarify its own meaning, it cannot interpret itself (see my previous post), and it cannot adapt itself to new circumstances, and--most notably--it never CLAIMS to "trump all other truth claims" (or to interpret itself, etc.)! Why would anyone seek to "put words into the mouth" of Scripture, in this case?

So it isn't mere intransigence which makes me hesitate; rather, it's plentiful experience with non-Catholics (and especially anti-Catholic-Church people, of whom there are some on this thread), here and elsewhere, in which such simple-sounding phrases (as your question uses) are loaded with unspoken and incorrect implications. I really don't mean to be tedious; I simply know that our understandings and our very definitions are too ill-defined, as yet, to allow any sort of unqualified "yes" or "no" to your question. I do not say that we can NEVER have an answer; but I say that we have some necessary work to do, first.

Yes, we need a context to understand it, such as language, and reason, a functioning brain, and the presence of God's Spirit. But the foundation for success in applying all that is present in the axiom, the truth we both know, that at the end of the day, it is the living word of God that is the final authority on any matter it addresses, simply because of what it means for God to be God. Can we at least start there?

I'm afraid not... since we're not even agreed on what the "Word of God" IS, and what it is not (i.e. its definition). Here are a few questions which need to be answered, first:

1) By "Word of God", DO you mean "the 66-book Protestant Canon of Scripture", and that alone?

2) By what means do you settle your mind on your answer to (1), and what surety (aside from your personal opinion) can you give me that you are correct?

3) By what means do you propose that said "Word of God" can be interpreted correctly, with guarantee that no critical areas of necessary doctrine/belief are distorted or omitted? I ask this, among other reasons, because "sola Scriptura" has proven itself to be a failure, in this regard.

I'd replied (at least once--#699, second reply, item #1) by stating that you needed to define "Word of God" more exactly... since it can refer to Jesus, Himself, or to Scripture, or to Sacred Tradition, or to any combination of the three. If you mean the first, then my answer is a resounding 'YES!'; if you mean the second, then I would say, "no, since it's equal in status with Sacred Tradition, and it must be interpreted, along with Sacred Tradition, by the Church Whom Jesus established for that purpose"; and I assume you wouldn't have meant the third.

There are two things that Jesus called *truth* in Scripture.

One was Himself. The other was the Word.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

God breathed Scripture that Jesus said cannot be broken, is NOT equal to traditions of man or writings of *church fathers* or anything else men have produced.

Where do we find Jesus telling us that He established the church for the purpose of interpreting Scripture?

[paladinan]
I'd replied (at least once--#699, second reply, item #1) by stating that you needed to define "Word of God" more exactly... since it can refer to Jesus, Himself, or to Scripture, or to Sacred Tradition, or to any combination of the three. [etc.]

[metmom]
There are two things that Jesus called *truth* in Scripture. One was Himself. The other was the Word.

I'm not sure how you could read a reply which asks for a clear definition of "Word" (Jesus Himself, or Oral Word of God, or Written Word of God), and follow it up with a vagary like that! Let me ask again: which of the three definitions of "Word" are you using... and how do you know that Scripture was using the definition that you're using? John 17:17 certainly doesn't say anything which would limit it to the written Word.

God breathed Scripture that Jesus said cannot be broken, is NOT equal to traditions of man or writings of *church fathers* or anything else men have produced.

That's the point: "men" did not "produce" Sacred Tradition--they were GIVEN it, by God. Both Scripture and Church History attest to this (cf. 2 Thes 2:15 and 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, etc.).

Where do we find Jesus telling us that He established the church for the purpose of interpreting Scripture?

It's a necessary logical corollary of establishing the Church to be the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), to the extent that those who do not heed the Church should be treated as the heathen or the publican (Matthew 18:17). True interpretation of Scripture is absolutely necessary (that's self-evident, if we believe that Scripture is necessary at all; it's absurd to think that Scripture is important, but that its CONTENTS are not).

[paladinan]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "starting in ourselves"; can you clarify/unpack that? And again: do you mean "Scripture"? And when referring to Scripture, do you mean the 66-book Protestant Bible?

[metmom]
If you impugn the 66 books of the *Protestant* Bible, you also impugn the very same books of the *Catholic* Bible.

(?!?) Where on earth do you get THAT?

I impugn the FACT that the Protestant Bible is fragmentary and incomplete (and that many Bibles used by Protestants, such as the KJV, are riddled with errors--which Protestants and Catholics both admit, but that's an additional point), NOT that it contains the books that it DOES! Isn't that clear? I would also "impugn" a car for having no wheels; but it would be just as illogical for you to see me do that and reply, "If you impugn that car, then you impugn all its parts... and parts which YOUR car has, I'd add!" A summary of my reply, at this point, is: are you kidding?

Is that a bit more clear? I do not fault the Protestant Bible for containing the 66 books (or more accurately, 64 + fragments of Esther and Daniel) that it has; I fault it for NOT containing the other seven (and fragments of the two others)! I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain that; you'll have to tell me what you still don't understand about that, so that I can try again, if necessary...

You cannot cast doubt on the veracity of the word without it affecting ALL versions of Scripture.

Who's "casting doubt on the veracity" of Scripture? I'm not.

That is also a dangerous row to hoe. It's the first tactic that the enemy used with Adam and Eve, and it's the same one that he used against Jesus when he tempted HIM in the wilderness.

(*sigh*) And here we go, again. What is it with some anti-Catholics, who--in the middle of an otherwise earnest discussion about the substance--can't resist the urge to draw allusions between their opponent and Satan? Why do you feel the "itch" to inject illogical and inflammatory drama into what should be a discussion of the facts?

SR,

With all due respect: you’re getting a little random, here. Any good lawyer knows that definitions are critically important, when arguing a case; if your client’s action does not technically fit the definition of “aggravated assault”, that’s very relevant, and it directly affects your actions/decisions from that point... and so on.

Here’s a clear, straight-forward question (which I’ve asked you at least once, already, and you haven’t touched): when you say “God’s Word”, are you referring to the 66-book Protestant Bible (and it alone), or are you not? It’s a very simple question... and you’re being rather evasive, for reasons which I don’t quite understand.

Isn’t it logical to settle the definition of “God’s Word” before talking about its authority? If we mean two different things by the term, then we’ll be talking past each other... pointlessly.

Now, if you’d rather not answer (for whatever reason). that’s your right... but at that point, I’ll have to go with what you said at the end, and say that I’m not sure that any further substantial discussion could happen between us, on this point.

Could you at least CONSIDER answering that question, as a gesture of goodwill?

From my e-Sword listing:

1Sa_9:27 And as they were going down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid the servant pass on before us, (and he passed on,) but stand thou still a while, that I may shew thee the word of God.

1Ki_12:22 But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

1Ch_17:3 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,

Pro_30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Mar_7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Luk_3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Luk_4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luk_5:1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,

Luk_8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

Luk_8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Luk_11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Joh_10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Act_4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Act_6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Act_6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Act_8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Act_11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

Act_12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.

Act_13:5 And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.

Act_13:7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.

Act_13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Act_13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Act_17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

Act_18:11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Act_19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

Rom_9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Rom_10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

1Co_14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

2Co_2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2Co_4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Eph_6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Col_1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

1Th_2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1Ti_4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

2Ti_2:9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.

Tit_2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Heb_4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Heb_6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

Heb_11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Heb_13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

1Pe_1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

2Pe_3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

1Jn_2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

Rev_1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Rev_1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev_6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Rev_19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Rev_20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

So you tell me, based on the above usages, where any of those occurrences of the "word of God" is subjugated to some alternate source of truth claims.

Peace,

SR

SR... if I say "please", will you answer my simple question (from #715)? There's absolutely NO point in multiplying citations about "the Word of God" if the very definition of the "Word of God" is in dispute! (Your citations are plainly speaking of diverse meanings, anyway--cf. your first 4 citations plainly refer to specific prophecies, and plainly not already-existing Scripture, while the NT prophecies plainly refer to something broader than those.)

It's neither disrespectful to God's Word nor logically inappropriate for me to ask you (because of reasons which I've already described, repeatedly) for a clear definition of what YOU mean by "God's Word" or "the Word of God".

Since you came to the defense of "sola Scriptura", and since you're apparently not Catholic, I'm leaning toward the conclusion that you use the 66-book Protestant Bible, that you regard THAT as "the (complete) Word of God", and that you regard all of your "e-Sword" citations as referring to that 66-book Protestant Bible.

If I'm mistaken (since the board is very sensitive about putting words into the mouths of others, and "constructing straw men"--an accusation which is trotted out both justly and unjustly, on this thread alone), then now would be the time to correct me.

Will you please give a clear and unequivocal answer to my question, or at least give me a clear and unequivocal explanation as to why you're repeatedly refusing to do so? Please give me SOMETHING to go on, here...!

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.