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.
---
And the reasoning there is not more is mainly due to the lack of doctrinal commitment in Catholicism overall. For while RCs differ with the official teaching of their church more than the average - and which Rome implicitly allows, thus testifying to what she really believes - her most manifest sects and divisions are among those who take doctrine the most seriously.
And the criticism of such, evidently out of love for their church, can rival that of evangelicals driven by love for Truth, while other RCs defend Rome against anything that slights her in the least.
Hi dan’l...
well I must say my young faithful protestant partner would heartily disagree with you.
When we are in a strange city and we have been in several around the world, we attempt to at least keep the Lord’s day and often morning Mass if I can. I have never had a problem finding a Catholic Church within 10 minutes or so from where we are working/staying. And believe me a Catholic would never go to a non-Catholic curch/sect for morning Mass.
He on the other hand has never found an Evangelical Free church anywhere near where we are.
I believe any Catholic on the forum will tell you the same.
But dream on.
AMDG
So
It certainly is...Forged document thru out all of its history...
Peter was sent to the Jews...Paul, to the Gentiles...Linus was of the Gentile group...
So when did Peter take over as the apostle to the Gentiles??? Answer: He didn't...
Hi Is...
Kindly provide a listing of EXACTLY which of the popes listed is incorrect.
And please BE SPECIFIC with your objection as your tired retread protestant generalities just don’t cut it.
AMDG
Oh, my! I do believe you are resorting to anti-Protestant bigotry all by yourself. Another one for your records, Daniel1212.
You already got a Freepmail that gave you ten or so. Why not read that one first and get back to us?
Especially not when you read this point:
Your list is a fabrication.
There are no ‘popes’ in Yeshua’s Assembly.
For the pagan apostasy called the Roman catholic church to defame the followers of Yeshua by calling them by the pagan title “pope” is to bear false witness against each and every one of them.
Confession and repentance is in order.
.
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
I would have added self-flagellation. But you are more merciful than I am.
Wonderful!
The language of the occult.
Yehova’s language is Hebrew.
Both the Old and the New Testaments were translated into Latin or as you call it ‘the language of the occult’.
“It was largely the work of St. Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of the Vetus Latina (old Latin translations). Its widespread adoption eventually led to their eclipse. By the 13th century this revision had come to be called the versio vulgata, that is, the “commonly used translation”.[1] In the 16th century it became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible in the Roman Catholic Church.”
So for ONE THOUSAND YEARS the New Testament was only copied in Latin, or as you call it:
“the Language of the Occult”.
God will not be mocked and someday you will personally be called to account for your words and deeds.
Good luck on that E-S.
Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
I am sure no future Baptists attended the White Horse Tavern:)
Jerome found the Deutercanonical books less than inspired and therefore not appropriate for inclusion in the Biblical canon, for the same reasons most Protestants do, and required some persuasion to include them in the Latin Vulgate.
Then you have nothing to worry about now since not one protestant bible publisher includes them.
AMDG
You’re mistaken about that.
Is commentary the same as the scripture themselves? Luther himself conceded that the Catholic preserved and gave the world the Bible and who am I to argue with Herr Doktor when he is correct about something.
hi RegC,
I am always amazed that protestants will criticize Catholics and demand proof whenever we make an assertion.
And you just reinforce my notion that protestants make assertions based on AIR.
I like how you really demolished my assertion that all protestant bible publishers stopped including the Apocrypha in their bibles with your statement: “You’re mistaken about that.”
SHOW ME!
AMDG
Thank you for removing all doubt.
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.