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.
---
“[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
Hmmmm, interesting. Contrary to Chesterton, is that not precisely what happens with someone’s “last will and testament”? The written word of the testator is the final authority in a court of law (see Hebrews 9:15-22 for a direct analogy, where the word diatheke (Greek)/berith (Hebrew) is to be understood both ways, as either covenant or testament, depending on the Christological perspective, i.e. whether Jesus the Christ is to be understood as the One actively keeping the law we have not kept - keeping the covenant - or as the One passively taking responsibility for our failure to keep it - being the Testator whose death activates the giving of all that properly is His to give to us).
If the written word of God is not exactly analogous to a “last will and testament,” then what is it? Did God the Holy Spirit not foresee the problems that would ensue if man were to be permitted to interpret the plain sense of the text God Himself willed, the plain sense of His covenant/testament? If God cannot be depended on and assumed to have written such a document clearly from the first, then in what sense do we really trust God, the Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, All-knowing (for the Holy Scriptures assert all those attributes of Him)?
I suppose Catholics just lap this stuff up...Fact is, the bible self defines what the church is and your religion doesn't even come close to what the church of the bible is...
That alone disqualifies any discussion of the scripture on the part of the Catholic religion...
You don't even know what the church is...You're certainly not going to influence anyone who is a bible believer...
I’ve read a bit of Chesterton. What a bloviator. He has this formula to sound profound but when you think about what he says it is just trite -
It is not that what the bible says is true, it is that what we say is true is the bible.
Ok, Thanks G.K.
That is not a G.K quote, that is a G.K. parody.
My three questions to Catholics:
1)What, in the mind of a Catholic, was the proper response to the corruption of the pre-reformation Catholic church, including but not limited to the selling of indulgences? What was the proper response to a church that was violating the teachings of the Bible?
2)The bible tells us Saint Peter was granted infalability by Jesus. If Peter had passed on that infalability to the next Bishop of Rome don’t you think that might have been recorded in scripture or at least somewhere? It seems to me that such an event would have been chronicled in detail by the church itself.
3)The Pope does not choose his successor, the Catholics elect the next one. That would mean that primacy comes not from the Pope but rather from the church itself. If one does accept that there is a church with primacy, since the great schizm how do I know that the Catholics are it rather than the Eastern Orthodox?
These questions are not meant to be snarky or arguementative, they are simply my own logical problems with the Catholic claim to primacy.
I invite you to look at the Catholic faith and its relative lack of division. yes we differ from protestants but not nearly as much as protestants differ from one another.
Feel free to ask any questions about the Catholic faith.
Regards,
AMDG
No thank you. Looked at it. Closely. Not interested.
I always wonder of the 35,000 Protestant sects which one is correct..they all can’t interpret the Bible Correctly.
Look today on subjects like Abortion , Homosexuality, The catholic church has always been the same..DOGMA>
The Biggest fallacy in Sola Scriptura is that they miss the entire Purpose of the new Testament. The New Covenant the Only Covenant is the EUCHARIST..The REAL Presence of the Body Blood Soul & Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Most Protestants don’t recognize that it took 300 years of discussion & prayer to Finalize the new testament. Each Book Chosen had one thread in common the Book contained a contribution to the liturgy of the Eucharist which by the 2nd Century was the Mass we know today compiled By St Justin the Martyr.The Tradition Protestants reject is the early church fathers writings in support of the Apostles writings. They travelled with Peter and John the Apostle and wrote of celebrating the TRUE Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ said if you don’t believe be gone..He started with only the Apostles all others left him. It is sad ...they don’t recognize Christ as he himself explained the Founding of his Church the Repository and Nurturer of Scripture not 35,000 Protestant sects rejecting his own words...
1Jn_5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
There it is right there...By John's writings alone...And since John's writings are only in the scriptures, we know that with and by the scriptures alone we may know we have salvation...
We know that if you can read and understand a daily newspaper, you can certainly read and understand what John wrote...
There is no Longer a formal Protest with LUTHER a Document was signed 15 years ago by Catholic Church & Lutherans.
What are you Protesting?
I always wonder of the 35,000 Protestant sects which one is correct.
Which one is correct? The arm or the leg. They eye or the ear?
It’s the BODY of Christ, not the single cell.
I have no idea what purpose these threads serve, but I give thanks that the enemies of God create continual opportunities to quote Scripture and spread the gospel of free grace. We have no idea how The Lord might use our responses. I pray He leads Catholics and lurkers unknown to Christ through the one and only gospel that is the “power of God unto salvation.” (Romans 9:16) I pray those evangelicals who are soft on Rome will be reminded of her apostasy and wickedness and come to understand that separation from Rome was right in the 16th century and it remains right today.
I too am Baptist and I agree with what the great 19th century Baptist Charles Spurgeon said of Rome:
“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”
“Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.”
You are right that there is an attempt here to repair (sew) a division planted (sown) long ago.
Martin Luther as a monk made three vows TO GOD not the Catholic Church: vows of poverty, chastity and obedience - all ow which he personally reneged on.
Now when your wife reneges on her vows to you - it is called divorce. Are you going to go back and remarry her - NO not without her agreeing to reject her divorce and recommit to her original vow.
Luther rejected his vow To God of obedience to his bishop - which he trashed.
He rejected his vow to God of Chastity which he trashed when he god married to the ex-nun, and
he rejected his vow to God of poverty when he accepted honorariums for his ‘work’.
So why the heck should the Catholic Church rescind their excommunication for this unrepentant former priest???
WHY?
For the Greater Gory of God
In who's opinion???
That wouldn't be because they don't allow any division would it? Suppose a group of priests support women priests? Same sex marriage? Abortion? They're told to submit or leave. So this lack of division is supposed to be a sign of what exactly?
I don’t know if English is your first language or not but that quote does not say ‘the Bible alone”
Yes we are attempting to cleave the Body of Christ
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.