Protestants and Sola Scriptura

Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?

It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?

If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.

Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.

Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.

But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.

Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.

The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."

Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Bsuppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."

St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."

"I must have missed this. Where do you find this in the scriptures?"

There's a LOT of Scripture that you Protestants "missed".

Acts 13:3 says, "And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on (Barnabas and Paul), they sent them away."

"You forgot he was also with James, the Lord’s brother. I think he would have learned more from him than Peter."

The relevant verse mentions James not at all.

A Galatians 1:18 "Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."

""List just one church that Peter founded. It wasn’t the Jerusalem church since that was established by the Apostles and they selected James, brother of John, as the first leader and then James, the Lord’s brother. It certainly was not Rome since there is no mention of him in Paul’s letter."

Geez--do you actually believe that all the Churches the apostles founded got mentioned in the New Testament?? How stupid. And as the Peter not being in Rome because Paul doesn't mention him proves nothing. There is plenty of hard historical evidence that proves beyond question that Peter was indeed in Rome, and died there. Of course, since that's "not in the Bible", you'll blow it off (but that's one of the reasons that "sola scriptura" is asinine).

Your answer supports my assertion. Since no definitive canon exists, Christians are free to select those books that they feel express the tenets of mere Christianity.

Not completely. The books must be "Inspired". The books must have been written during the Apostolic Era. The books must have been written by an Apostle, or someone closely associated with an Apostle.

Also, Jesus defined the OT and the Apostle Peter recognized that Paul's writings were Scripture and Paul recognized Peter's writings as Scripture as well.

Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."

Paul quotes Luke's writings with Deuteronomy in ITim. 5:18 showing he considered them to be Scripture and Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture in 2Peter 3:15-16.

If you look at the few books that there was any debate about you find they do not affect the message of The Gospel in any way. For example the EO did not include Revelation until the ninth century and to this day do not read from it in services. The lack of controversy reveals how little question there was about what was "Inspired". It's also interesting to note that Jerome began his translation of the Vulgate before the Synod of Hippo. If there was a controversy surrounding which books were "Inspired" how would he have known which to include.

“There's a LOT of Scripture that you Protestants “missed”.”

Actually we missed none of the scriptures. If you will notice, the Holy Spirit had already chosen Paul to be a missionary before he met with any of the Apostles.

Acts 9:15, “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel”

Acts 9:17, “And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.”

In fact, Paul didn't need the Apostles to authenticate his ministry and went into Arabia alone to study then went to Damascus to preach before going up to Jerusalem. Even then, the Apostles wanted nothing to do with him until Barnabas intervened.

Galatians 1:18 “Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days” (you forgot vs 19, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother”).

Acts 9:26-28, “And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.”

Paul then went back to Antioch to teach; brought gifts to the Jerusalem church without any mention of meeting with the Apostles; returned to his home town, Tarsus, to preach; and then back to Antioch where he taught until the Holy Spirit called and said it was time to fulfill his purpose.

Acts 13: 1-4, “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.”

Paul and Barnabas started churches in Cyprus, Pamphylia, Cilicia and Galatia during this missionary journey without the permission of the Apostles, just the Holy Spirit's moving in them and the teachers and prophets they ministered with at the Antioch church.

When Paul went back to the Jerusalem church and brought the Gentile, Titus, with him, he refused to accede to their demands that Titus be circumcised. Paul's position was that his ministry was as authentic as the ministry of the other Apostles since he, himself, was “an Apostle born out of due time” and they could add nothing to him that the Holy Spirit had no already given him.

Gal. 2:6-8, “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)”

The “right hand of fellowship” was only a recognition of their partnership in their witnessing of the gospel; it conferred nothing on Paul or Barnabas that the Holy Spirit had not already given them.

Gal. 2:9, “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision”

Three times, Paul has had hands laid” on him; Ananias, prophets and teachers at Antioch; and James, Cephas, and John. The first two were not Apostles yet they were recognition of the Holy Spirit's calling on Paul's life and Paul ministered after that recognition. The “right hand of fellowship” was no different than the two previous recognitions.

As far as Peter founding any churches there is no evidence he did. He disappears after his hypocrisy is exposed to the Jerusalem church in Acts 15 and when Paul mentions that all have forsaken him in his last letter to Timothy, just before his death, if Peter was in Rome at the time, his abandoning Paul in his time of need, is symptomatic of what he did in Jesus’ time of need.

I’m confused why your post led you to the Catholic church. You yourself mentioned that it was the persecution by the Roman Empire (Roman Catholic Church) that changed and altered the original documents. Doesn’t that make one wonder if God was trying to tell us not to follow the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks for reading my post! No, it doesn't tell me that at all; the Roman Empire ceased to persecute Christians even before its fall. But even beyond that, the Catholic Church was never a political body (it was never the Roman Empire). It's important to remember that the Catholic Church is comprised of many different rites (some say 7, others say 22, it depends how you count a "rite), see here for an explanation of "rites".

As one can see from that website above, the "Roman Catholic Church" is really but one Rite (albeit the largest rite) in the Catholic Church. It had/has nothing to do with the Roman Empire, other than sharing the name "Roman" (which technically it doesn't really have that, as the Roman Rite is really the Latin Rite).

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.