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.
---
Still waiting for an explanation of who is included in your number of romans...
Perhaps you missed my question. I asked, in the case of the +90% of Belgian Catholics who NEVER attend ANYTHING with the church, do you still count them? This accounts for millions and millions of romans who are CINOs.
Are they counted? If so, why? This is just one country.
“
He on the other hand has never found an Evangelical Free church anywhere near where we are.”
Not important. You can worship God anywhere. He is everywhere. Our only command was to “not forsake the assembling of ourselves together” for common worship.
While in Moscow, we attended a church service of other believers from around the world, from all different denominational backgrounds.
“Do not go beyond what is written.”
Satan is really having a field day slipping errors into new “translations.”
The passage correctly reads, “But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes: that in us you may learn that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.”
Get a correct translation.
Sounds like a modern tower of Babel.
Yes, I know the pagan ‘church’ loved latin.
But all of God’s word was originally given in his own language, Hebrew. what men do to it later is to be expected.
For the first two hundred years the NT was primarily a Hebrew resource. In the dark ages Latin prevailed, being the dark language. God was constantly mocked by the RCC.
.
>> “Sounds like a modern tower of Babel.” <<
.
The confusion of Babel is soon to be reversed, according to Zephaniah.
.
“Well, I’m sure you are just the person to explain in detail just what it does mean then.”
I don’t remember what “it” is. You should have included a short quotation.
“Your left out: “And a DAMNED fool for believing what you read!”
I don’t think that.
I think that a person who insists on his own interpretation of what he reads, in contradiction of the interpretations of the great minds of Western Civilization, is a damned fool.
“Micah 6:8...”
And those scriptures somehow rebut the proposition that God bestows great blessings on us?
“Prove it...For once, prove something you claim...”
You want me to type in an argument that would span at least a six-month seminar, here in FR? Try not to be ridiculous.
Nope...You claimed a few verses didn't mean what they say...I ask you what do they mean then??? Only take a sentence or two to explain your position...And if you refuse to do that, we know you don't have anything to back up your claims...
Any Protestant on here can explain a verse with just a sentence or a few paragraphs at the most with additional scripture to back it up...
1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I did transfer to myself and to Apollos because of you, that in us ye may learn not to think above that which hath been written, that ye may not be puffed up one for one against the other,
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.
Surely wouldn't take too much energy or intellect on your part to tells us what these things mean...
And it would only take one or two sentences to tell us what was passed on to your religion out side of the bible from the apostles...So quit dodging the issue with excuses...
It is not like protestants believe Catholics (or the Bible) say anyway.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
Explained very clearly in 1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
... Service was in english
“You claimed a few verses didn’t mean what they say”
Can’t you read? That’s not what I claimed at all.
Okay, I’m sick enough of dealing with this for now.
I fully agree with your tagline. See we can agree on something:)
Not surprised that a protestant would misunderstand the reference.
“Not surprised that a protestant would misunderstand the reference.”
He implied that if people were attending from all around the world, there would be many languages and people would not understand each other. I let him know that everyone spoke one language.
Did you miss the passage where Christ commanded Christians to love each other? I ain’t feelin’ the love.
Perhaps if you would simply go back to the post I was responding to? Here’s the quote by you.
“Only if it meant what you think it does, which it doesn’t.” Post 304
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.