Posted on 03/31/2014 5:45:28 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Under it, only doctrines that are found directly within the Bible or are drawn indirectly from it by simple reasoning are allowed. (See material vs. formal sufficiency & perspicuity.)“[The Church] does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means.” – G. K. Chesterton
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the primary passage used to defend this view, which always boggles my mind. Perhaps I need spectacles, but I do not see an “Only” at the beginning of this verse. The Church teaches (as Scripture teaches) that all Scripture is valuable. She does not, however, turn it into an idol.
Some Protestants also claim to honor other authorities, like the Church – but do they really? In a short written debate with a Protestant professor, he said, “Sola Scriptura does not even claim that there is no other authority besides the Bible; it maintains that the Bible is alone (sola) as the only infallible authority.” Some apologists concede this position, but I see no reason to, and so I responded, “The practical effect [of Sola Scriptura] is that it denies the authoritativeness of any other authority – making that authority not an authority at all.” The professor quickly changed the topic.
Sacred Tradition (capital ‘T’) is, obviously, a stumbling block for many, but it is perfectly reasonable. Not everything of relevance could fit within the Bible (John 20:30-31, John 21:25). This is evidenced by the elaborations of the Church Fathers, as well as the decrees of the Councils. And much of this has been written and can therefore even qualify as (extra canon) Scripture! Anyway, all Scripture must be interpreted “according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church” (Origen).
Pope Francis noted, “Sacred Scripture is the written testimony of the divine Word, the canonical memory that attests to the event of Revelation. However, the Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it. That is why the center of our faith isn’t just a book, but a salvation history and above all a person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.” (cf. CCC #108). All teaching is valuable – God is not limited to a book compiled by His Bride. On this point, the Bible is like a wedding album shared by two spouses: the husband, typically, arranges and provides for everything, while his wife fills in the details – but still, at the end of the day, it does not sum up their whole marriage.
Another great blow to Sola Scriptura is that the Bible did not put itself together, and it does not list the books that belong within it. It took the Jews thousands of years to decide on the Tanakh (their canon) and, even then, “Hellenistic” Jews preferred the Septuagint! The only reason that we know which books comprise the Testaments is that the Church has informed us. If the Church, as Her own entity, is not infallible on such doctrine, then the Bible cannot be trusted.
Many Protestants also allude that absolute truth can only be found within the Bible. If I throw an apple up into the air, it will fall. Where is that in the Bible? Of course, one could quickly retort with the idea that the Bible only necessarily contains the absolute moral truth necessary for salvation. But many Protestants do not actually believe that – just look at the large crowds of literal creationists! To be clear, the Bible is not guaranteed to be totally historically or scientifically inerrant in a literal sense. “Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert.” [Catholic Answers] And if a Protestant would like to say otherwise, he must prove his position from the Bible – which he cannot do, at least not to any definite degree. Even natural law, which exists outside of the Bible, does not encompass such. Leaders like Ken Ham could be defeated with these points.
I just cannot help but despise this great heresy of Sola Scriptura, the implication of which is that the Bride of Christ does not know Her Husband.
I love the Second Vatican Council’s statement on all of this: “[T]he task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” (Dei Verbum)
Let us put it this way: only trusting the Bible without the Church would be like loving “Romeo and Juliet” and hating Shakespeare’s explanation of it.
---
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
---
Even what Jim Thompson :) provides on this forum doesn’t substitute for that approaching the Throne stuff.
not familiar with this reference.
ola Scriptura does not even claim that there is no other authority besides the Bible; it maintains that the Bible is alone (sola) as the only infallible authority.” Some apologists concede this position, but I see no reason to, and so I responded, “The practical effect [of Sola Scriptura] is that it denies the authoritativeness of any other authority – making that authority not an authority at all.”
Here, as you are in need of a straw man to burn, you reject the correction, even labeling the correction as being a concession, and then go on to make an absurd statement that SS denies the authoritativeness of any other authority!!!
Yet this means that Westminster itself is dismissed as an authority must be dismissed, in context, as it affirms,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm ),
But not as enjoining unconditional obedience as to an assuredly infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes, which only God is worthy of.
Now i know you have a record of arrogantly posting por polemics as if they have no refutation, and then failing to actually engage such when it is given, so once again you need to answer some questions.
Since Scripture enjoins conditional obedience and thus SS upholds it, and you must uphold unconditional submission, under the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, and which rejects personal interpretation of Scripture as providing assurance of Truth, then what is your basis for assurance that Rome is the one True infallible church, and worthy of such unfaltering submission to the official teaching of Rome on matters of faith and morals?
Are you arguing that being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture means means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God?
I love the Second Vatican Council’s statement on all of this: “[T]he task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church,
Them you love propagandist assertions. Answer the above.
Do you deny that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced So that the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, or the premise of assured magisterial infallibility?
Another great blow to Sola Scriptura is that the Bible did not put itself together, and it does not list the books that belong within it....The only reason that we know which books comprise the Testaments is that the Church has informed us
So are you denying that Scripture does not provide for a canon, or that only an infallible magisterium can? Or that your version of SS does not?
Many Protestants also allude that absolute truth can only be found within the Bible. If I throw an apple up into the air, it will fall. Where is that in the Bible?
Are you really that desperate, or is your age showing?
Of course, one could quickly retort with the idea that the Bible only necessarily contains the absolute moral truth necessary for salvation.
Again are you really that desperate? Or so ignorant that your apologetics are am embarrassment and an argument against being a Catholic?
SS does not hold that Scripture teaches you how to design a nuclear reactor, nor that it is not accurate in its historical or scientific statements. The truth necessary for salvation is actually a RC argument, one that is a subject of debate, with conservative RCs holding to plenary inspiration and accuracy in historically or scientific statements.
the Bible is not guaranteed to be totally historically or scientifically inerrant in a literal sense.
That marks you as a liberal, and one that most RCs here would disagree with, as this supports the liberal revisionism evidenced in much of the NAB Bible helps and some of its notes , which they scorn. And rightly so.
And if a Protestant would like to say otherwise, he must prove his position from the Bible – which he cannot do, at least not to any definite degree
The NT treats the OT historical accounts as accurate, and it is a slippery slope once you impugn them. And past popes affirmed plenary accuracy.
LAMENTABILI SANE Pius X July 3, 1907 ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS CONDEMNED: 11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
Here is the story of your unified church on this from one of your own:
Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akins explains that “Basically, there was a huge, behind-the-scenes fight at Vatican II about plenary inerrancy. The traditional Catholic teaching--which prior popes had said was infallible--is that Scripture has unrestricted inerrancy. That is to say, any time Scripture makes a factual assertion then, properly understood, it's guaranteed to be true...the present wording of Dei Verbum was worked out, and assurances were given that the formulation--which was still not entirely satisfactory--was not to be understood as excluding the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture.
But there were problems: While the final formula didn't exclude the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture, it didn't mandate it, either. The formula could be read more than one way, with the clause about our salvation either serving to explain the purpose for which God put his truth in Scripture or limiting the scope of the truth which God inerrantly put in Scripture. (http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/09/compendium_on_i.html)
No wonder the sedevacantists object,
— VATICAN II Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.; http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
Throne = Where the One hearing our prayers resides. “Jim Thompson” is how the founder of this forum was incorrectly referred to.
Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Paul commends test of his teaching from himself with the scripture by the Boreans.
>>“[The Church] does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says…<<
Write that on a chalkboard a thousand times:)
Then compare:
2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJV
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.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.(KJV)
More here:
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Reading-Gods-Word/
And of course this:
Hebrews 4:10-12 KJV
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
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.
Wow you guys are on a Lenten role. Three hit pieces within a few hours. Didn’t you post this last Fall?
What did Jesus Christ say we must live on?
“But the point in posting this stuff isn’t to stimulate discussion. It’s to keep Christians fighting each other.”
Oh, yes. And you-know-who is behind it.
“Three hit pieces”
What nonsense.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
If that doesn’t mean bible alone then alone doesn’t mean alone...
Really? Are you serious?
Do you really imagine that every word spoken by Our Lord is recorded in the Bible? Do you really imagine that the “gospel...that which we have preached unto you” refers to books which were yet to be written?
Saint Paul *preached* the Gospel to the Galatians. He didn’t give them a copy of the King James version.
There is much that was passed down sola word-of-mouth, and more that we received through personal revelations.
“Didn’t you recently post this SAME Protestant-bashing propaganda here?”
The article contains neither propaganda nor protestant-bashing.
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
That says don’t add to or subtract from the Bible. It does not say, nor does it imply, that the Bible is all there is.
Sometimes I can't help but answer back in anger to the more outrageous accusations that get spit out, but I pray for this forum and those who both read the threads and those who add their comments. I KNOW that the Holy Spirit WILL reveal the truth to all those who diligently seek to know it. All we can and should do is be a conduit for Him at this time on this site and trust that hearts and minds will be touched with the truth of the gospel. That is what really counts - all the peripheral stuff is sidetrack.
It's kind of sad that they feel the need to do this already knowing the response to expect. I imagine the motive is INTENTIONALLY to bash every non-Catholic Christian who might read the Religion Forum - they are never really worded in a way that shows a gentle and respectful side. I really think that if we started posting threads with the same mindset, we would get all hell rained down on us by them and labeled as bigoted, hateful, fake Christians who only want to bash them. Too bad their mirrors are all fogged up - they'll never see that speck OR log!
No, of COURSE not! That's right...you're the one who insists that there has NEVER been any anti-Protestant bigotry on ANY threads in the Religion Forum - even after you were shown multitudes of them. Apparently, nothing qualifies as that to you but if the shoe is on the other foot, then it's easily Catholic bashing. Duplicity is rampant.
A valid comparison would be btwn churches under two models for determine Truth, Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired authoritative word of God, versus the church being the supreme authority. .
Those who hold most to the former are far more unified in basic beliefs than Catholics overall.
Look today on subjects like Abortion , Homosexuality, The catholic church has always been the same..DOGMA>
That is a very limited scope and is a paper unity. Ja, 2:18 teaches it is what you do that reveals what your believe, and what Rome does is foster a largely liberal membership, whom she treats as members in life and in death, manifesting what she really believes.
Also, How much has been infallibly defined? Do you have a sure list of such? How much can allow dissent and disagreement?
Book contained a contribution to the liturgy of the Eucharist which by the 2nd Century
Neither Acts or any book after it interpretive of the gospels describes the Lord's supper as the center of its life and worship, or preaches it as the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life. And the only manifest description of it focuses on the church as the body of Christ, showing the Lord death by its communal meal of sharing, as shown here .
All these and more are mere assertions. Answer the questions posed to Matthew, which i doubt he will forthrightly answer,
What is your basis for assurance that Rome is the one True infallible church?
Are you arguing that being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture means means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God?
No, as in before Christ, the preservation was that of a remnant, even within Catholicism, and partly despite it, while it progressively became as the gates of her for her multitudes.
The Protestants removed 7 Books from the Old Testament 15 Centuries Later.. isn’t that wrong?
You mean they removed 7 books from an infallible indisputable canon that was settled 15 centuries earlier? Answer please.
How was it that any books were established as being Scripture?
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.