Posted on 12/29/2019 1:57:07 PM PST by ebb tide
At the suggestion of Father Dave Nix, I recently read the short work by Joel Peters entitled “Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura.” It is a fast read and probably the most crushing blow to Protestantism I have ever read. You simply cannot argue with Peters’s logic and the historical facts he presents (it is well sourced), not to mention all of the Scripture he cites. Having been a Protestant before converting to the Catholic Church, I was not shocked by anything I read, but I was delighted to have such well researched reasons to back up what I knew to be true: sola scriptura is an intellectual joke created by a man too proud to submit to the Church.
The back of the booklet states that it “[t]otally devastates one of the two pillars of Protestantism.” I want to show that those two pillars, sola scriptura and sola fide, are dependent on each other in such a way that devastating one pillar actually devastates both.
To do this, I want to focus on how Scripture alone is dependent on the doctrine of faith alone; you can easily work the other way as well, but that is for another time. To do this, we need to look at one of the twenty-one reasons Peters gives and how it relates to sola fide, or the teaching that we are saved through faith alone. The booklet explains that without a valid authority — the existence of which would violate Sola Scriptura — to codify and to protect the canon of Scripture, we end up with thousands of versions of the Bible. Many of these versions contain serious theological errors, such as the Jehovah’s Witness Bible [1] and any number of translations that use Luther’s additions and retractions (think adding the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 or removing 1 and 2 Maccabees as well as several other books, whether partial or whole).
I proposed this problem to an intelligent, well read, and faithful Presbyterian friend of mine. This is not the kind of Christian who just goes to church on Sunday and speaks in platitudes about “being saved.” This is the kind of Christian who can quote the Westminster Confession and probably knows more about the early history of the Church than your typical Novus Ordo parish priest. After a long discussion with him, it dawned on me that the only way to refute Peters’s point about the necessity of an outside authority to approve the Bible is to acknowledge that different translations or interpretations and the theological differences that follow do not actually matter.
I proposed to my friend that how we interpret the Bible really does affect our salvation because, for example, if one Christian believes that contraception is acceptable and the other does not, only one of them is truly living according to Scripture. I presented Peters’s argument and said that we cannot leave this matter up to each person because it results in thousands of interpretations and denominations that teach different things about what actions are sinful and what actions are not. We need an authority to tell us which Bible is correct and how to interpret its contents so we can live according to God’s laws, not Luther’s or Zwingli’s or Joseph Smith’s.
His response is what gave me the thesis for this article: “So you have a different view of faith from mine. Outside faith in Jesus Christ (sola fide) by grace alone (sola gratia) there is no salvation. Whether you and I agree or disagree on contraception is not a matter that divides us into believer or non-believer. Could one of us be in error? Yes! Could both of us be in error? Yes! The question [of contraception] is outside of believing in the person and work of Jesus Christ; this is not fundamentally a divide we need to overcome to be saved.”
It hit me like a ton of bricks! Protestants — or at least this one Protestant — do not care if you have different ideas about the morality of certain actions, because to the Protestant, actions do not matter. You can insert any moral question in the place of contraception, and the answer would be the same. The Protestant needs the teaching of faith alone to justify the teaching of Scripture alone and to get around this particular refutation that an outside authority is needed. Sola scriptura is entirely dependent on sola fide. It is manifestly obvious to anyone and everyone that there are countless translations and interpretations of the Bible, so the Protestant has to say this does not matter and that each believer is free to interpret Scripture how they choose and then to live accordingly. And the only way to justify millions of people having different opinions on how to live and what constitutes sin and immorality is to say that their actions do not matter, only their faith in Christ. See how the defense of sola scriptura is just to resort to sola fide? One pillar depends on the other.
Obviously, sola scriptura falls flat and is gravely mistaken, but by destroying its merits so systematically, Joel Peters also destroyed the other pillar of Protestantism because of their inherent interdependence. The two pillars of Protestantism are illogical, and it is so much easier to prove than I ever imagined. The circle of defending one with the other fails, because they are both easily disprovable with Scripture and basic logic, as Mr. Peters aptly demonstrates in his other twenty reasons.
[1] From footnote 32 of the book, which concerns the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Of the numerous examples which could be cited, space considerations confine us to just a few to illustrate the point. In John 1:1, the NWT reads, “… and the Word was a god” rather than “and the Word was God,” because Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. In Colossians 1:15-20, the NWT inserts the word “other” into the text four times because Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ Himself was created. In Matthew 26:26 the NWT reads “… this means my body…” instead of “This is my body,” because Witnesses deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist[.]”
You gotta be kiddin' me...So you pick out the Jehovah Witness Bible to prove your point...This article was written for stupid or lazy Catholics who we all know will not investigate the lies to see if what the author says is true...
New International Version
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
New Living Translation
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
English Standard Version
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
Berean Study Bible
For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Berean Literal Bible
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
New American Standard Bible
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
New King James Version
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
King James Bible
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Christian Standard Bible
For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift--
Contemporary English Version
You were saved by faith in God, who treats us much better than we deserve. This is God's gift to you, and not anything you have done on your own.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift--
International Standard Version
For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
NET Bible
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God;
New Heart English Bible
for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For it is by his grace that we have been saved through faith, and this faith was not from you, but it is the gift of God,
GOD'S WORD® Translation
God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God.
New American Standard 1977
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Jubilee Bible 2000
For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,
King James 2000 Bible
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
American King James Version
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
American Standard Version
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Douay-Rheims Bible
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;
Darby Bible Translation
For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God's gift:
English Revised Version
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Webster's Bible Translation
For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Weymouth New Testament
For it is by grace that you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is God's gift, and is not on the ground of merit--
World English Bible
for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Young's Literal Translation
for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift,
Every single major English translation says the same thing...We have been saved by the gift of grace by God thru faith....And you want to see the hilarious part??? Every one of those bibles in the next verse says the same thing as well...And here's the CATHOLIC BIBLE which agrees with them...
Douay-Rheims Bible
Not of works, that no man may glory.
Well I’m sure not listening to the pope! What a mess he is.
You KNOW what is in Pope Francis' heart? You KNOW that he doesn't have the faith?
Now YOU are playing God. Who are YOU to judge him? Shame on you.
Unless you are a Catholic why WOULD you listen to him? He is only infallible FOR CATHOLICS when he is speaking about faith and morals, nothing else.
But, since you aren't a Catholic why get all hot under the collar about HIM? Why on earth would you care?
We MUST try to be close to Jesus. HE will be our judge.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
Who mentioned a Pope besides you?
No one ever said that the Pope never errs nor that past Popes never erred.
The way it goes is that on faith and morals only the Pope is infallible.
Besides, there are 214 Cardinals to advise him on EVERYTHING
Jesus HAD to choose humans to bring His Catholic Church to fruition. He chose TWELVE Apostles and ONE of them, Judas Iscariot, betrayed Him.
Why would our Lord choose such a man?
I don't know why but He did.
I was raised conservative Baptist and received my theological education in pre-eminent Evangelical schools (B.A. Moody Bible Institute; M.A. Wheaton College), while earning my Ph.D. in Theology at a Jesuit school (Marquette University). I have learned to appreciate both traditions, and hope that one day genuine Christians (the author of the article wrongly cites the Jehovah’s Witnesses bible as if it was a legitimate “Protestant” sect) of varying denominations will realize that they hold much more in common than what they disagree on. As the world descends into hostility and the persecution of Christianity as prophesied by Jesus Himself, one would hope that people of Faith would encourage and support one another rather than continue in pointless squabbles.
It's a very, very small membership.
And Roman Catholics cry about "Roman Catholic" bashing.
I think you misspelled Omelet!
I was guessing there were cracked eggs involved...
You don’t have to be able to read hearts to know Francis is a heretic; his own words convict him.
Whatever credibility this "writer" had is lost right there.
There are not thousands of versions of the Bible.
Now, if the author is trying to somehow conflate the languages the Bible has been translated into with versions, then he veers off further into losing his credibility.
Many of these versions contain serious theological errors, such as the Jehovah’s Witness Bible [1]...
Really...he's using the JWs as an example to hang his hat on?
LOL!
This is like shooting fish in a barrell.
I really cannot believe the poster actually posted this.
Does this idiot really think anyone outside of the JWs takes their translation seriously?
One of the first lessons I learned in my Intro to Greek was just why the JWs have their translation of John 1:1 incorrect.
No reputable Greek scholar would translate the passage in the manner they do.
Does this "writer" not know this?
Does he not know Greek? I seriously doubt it.
Now, let's look at an admitted error by Roman Catholicism in the translation of the Vulgate.
"The translation "she" [in reference to Genesis 3:15] of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
One of the passages Rome has built so much of its Mariolatry around cannot be defended critically.
Bad translation leading to bad theology....and this guy is talking about error. LOL!
....and any number of translations that use Luther’s additions and retractions (think adding the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 or removing 1 and 2 Maccabees as well as several other books, whether partial or whole).
4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Roman Catholics ignore (and most Protestants are not aware of):
“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”
Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] with the word “alone.”
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] ]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
This guy really did not do his homework.
OMCET
that’s what happens when you try to make the facts fit your theory rather than your theory fit the facts
But considering the source.
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.