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.
---
If it were not for Romans crucifying Jesus, we would not have salvation. If it were not for Jews rejecting Jesus, we Gentiles would not have been grafted in.
If I were to extend gratitude for historical preservation of Scripture through dark ages of decline, utter corruption and war, it would be to the Irish Church, which carried on and preserved them in isolation for centuries, having little to no contact with the nightmare that was Rome in those times.
Is.. you know this but still dont accept this
Gutenburg was a Catholic
The eight or nine Bibles PRINTED prior to Gutenberg’s were also Catholic translated from the Latin Vulgate and a protestant group says so - read it and weep!
About Incunabula
http://bav.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/early-printed-books
Incunabula, or incunables, are early printed books, produced before the year 1501. The category of incunabula includes typographic books (printed using movable type) and block books (printed using full-page engravings), printed on either parchment or paper. The majority of incunabula were printed in Germany and Italy, and in Latin, although the Bodleian and Vatican collections also include incunabula in Hebrew, Greek and vernacular languages.
Some incunabula, such as the Bodleian’s Malermi Bible, were illustrated with woodcuts during the printing process, much like later printed books. However, the traditions of manuscript illumination and rubrication (in which headings and important words or letters were inked in red) endured through the first decades of book printing, and many incunabula, including the Gutenberg Bible, were decorated by hand after they had already been printed and bound. For books that were decorated in this way, the amount of decoration varies from copy to copy; buyers may have been able to choose how much they were willing to pay for. The Bodleian’s and the Vatican’s copies of the Gutenberg Bible have both been digitized for the launch of this project, so that users can compare the decoration and condition of these landmark texts.
Stamp. Ross. 283
This large-format Bible, glossed with the margin notes of Niccolò da Lira, was printed in 1478-1479 in Cologne by Heinrich Quentell and Bartholomaeus of Unkel on behalf of Johann Helmann and Arnold Salmonster in Cologne and Anton Koberger in Nuremberg. Known as the ‘Cologne Bible,’ it was printed in two varieties of German: Low Saxon (niedersächsisch) and Low Rhenish (niederrheinische). As in all pre-Lutheran German Bibles, the translation was made from the Latin Vulgate. The two volumes are richly illustrated with 113 and 123 woodcuts respectively, made by the so-called ‘Master of Cologne.’ The woodcuts, illustrating the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, introduce key figures such as King David and the Evangelists, but most notable is the illustration of the Creation scene. The decoration in both volumes was hand-colored in a style that influenced all subsequent production, not only in Germany but across Europe.
“And now you know the Biblical position!”
No, you merely confirmed that you follow a false and tendentious interpretation of those Holy Scriptures.
“That should frighten even the most ardent Catholic into understanding that the Catholic Church teaches doctrines not taught in scripture.”
Only if it meant what you think it does, which it doesn’t.
LOL
You can give me a Bible citation for that nonsense right?
Source link?
This thread is now official, 35000, 40000 denominations, Luther's unsourced quote (which can double for the Catholic 'we wrote the Bible' assertion).
“The apostle John already told us that no more knowledge than what he has written is required for us to receive salvation...That part of the argument is settled...It is recorded in scripture...It is a done deal...”
Back to that “God is stingy” argument.
God is not stingy. He has given us much more than “what is required,” which would be a bare minimum.
God is not stingy. He gives with both hands. In addition to “what is required,” He gives us a wealth of things to comfort us and aid in our salvation.
God is not stingy. It seems to me that it must sadden Him that Protestants make such a big deal of rejecting all those gifts.
As a sinner, I am not arrogant enough to reject any of God’s gifts, especially those that help me work out my salvation in fear and trembling.
“We” had the Bible’s NT beginnings 300 years before the catholic church even existed.
The papists came along in the mid 4th century. Matthew wrote his foundational Hebrew gospel in the early first century.
.
“even after you were shown multitudes of them.”
No one has ever shown me one.
Go ahead, post a quotation.
I guess posting links to other threads is verboten, for some reason, but surely you could quote twenty or thirty words without getting in trouble.
Just, “dsc said...” or “somebody else said...”
>> “As a sinner, I am not arrogant enough to reject any of God’s gifts” <<
.
But all of those “gifts” were put in writing.
Yeshua told us not to accept any oral “traditions.”
He sent numerous “woes” to those that invented the traditions.
Two reasons: 1) I won't be baited and more importantly
2) Matthew 7:6
A biblical citation for a quote from Luther. Yeah sure I will get right on that
sorry replied to the wrong post..
We since you claim it went into apostasy, the burden of proof is on you.
Good to know as i thought it might be too much. Praise God.
google is your friend.
They are “different” (unbiblical) on just about every front. And it makes me sad because some of the sweetest people I’ve known were Mormons. I have some LDS cousins and I just cannot imagine how they went from the strong Christian faith of our great grandparents to such quackery. That aside, like most sincere false religionists they are going about to establish their own righteousness. They don’t understand that “...Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” They don’t know that for those in Christ, HE is our righteousness.
What a peculiar response. I can only conclude that the pearls you’re declining to cast before swine (me, lol?) would be that Scripture is merely a collection of books for which we all should exhibit great gratitude to Rome, but that they’re not to be held as authoritative over those who collected them.
I have nothing to prove to you. I can’t make you or any other man believe and I’ll not try. I’ve pointed the way to the gospel of Christ and I’ve sounded the alarm in regard to apostasy and the false gospel of Rome. Only God can open your ears to hear the truth and your heart to heed the warning.
“The subject of Deuteronomy 4:2 is the words/commandments of God not ‘all that there is.’”
Perhaps I did not write clearly.
No, I think I was pretty clear. Still, let me try again.
Deuteronomy 4:2 says don’t add to or subtract from the Bible. It does not say, nor does it imply, sola scriptura.
“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men - Mark 7:7”
You are assuming that which must be—cannot be—demonstrated. The Catholic Church does not teach “the commandments of men.” It seems protestants assume we do, because protestants reject so many of the wonderful gifts that God wants to give us. The protestant rationalization for rejecting them is that they are “the commandments of men.” However, this is false.
A God that so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to die on the cross, and He leaves us with nothing more than a disputed, oft-mistranslated, and oft-misinterpreted Book to aid us in salvation? Do you really think God is that stingy?
“And He followed it with examples.”
None of those examples either apply to the Catholic Church or demonstrate the validity of sola scriptura.
Do you have a firm date for Creation? If it occurred I'm sure you (and your Church) has it.
But I'll tell you when Rome went into apostasy. When they elected a Pope and called him such. When they started ruling over people and jailing them and even martyring them. When they sold indulgences to the desperate for their own profit and greed. When she glorified herself and lived luxuriously and said in her heart "I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow", that was the date she went into apostasy.
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.