Sola Scriptura

The John Ankerberg Show ^ | Feb.11,2015 | James McCarthy;

[RnMomof7]

Sola Scriptura

Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offen­sive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn’t have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church’s rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then begin­ning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscov­ered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.

Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scrip­ture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)

Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for heal­ing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NKJV)

The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.

It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institu­tion such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.

There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the suffi­ciency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradi­tion is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradi­tion and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

Notes

1. Compare: Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 19.
2. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World (Grand Rapids, MIchigan: Zondervan, 1993), p. 22.
3. Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation,” no. 21 and no. 24.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Because our faith is derived from the Bible.

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
Do you see my point? I think you misunderstand how the Magisterium works, friend. The charism of infallibility protects the Church from teaching (as formal dogma, binding on all the faithful under pain of heresy/sin) anything that's FALSE [...]

[eagleone]
Wrong!

"Wrong"?! Is this your mere opinion, or can you prove that assertion?

Please see Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, indulgences, for starters. There is zero scriptural support for either of these.

That's quite the eclectic collection! You are aware of the fact that the first two are dogmas (i.e. infallible teaching of the Church), and the third is a discipline (albeit one which refers to the true dogma of Purgatory, and the true dogma that spiritual goods are shared through the Communion of Saints)?

But as to your point, let me ask: if, for the sake of argument, I grant your claim (which is not true, BTW) that there is no explicit proof for the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption in Scripture... how, exactly, would that "disprove" them? Scripture says nothing about the quadratic formula, either... but I assure you, it's still quite true! Only if someone holds to "sola Scriptura" (which is not only unproven, but logically absurd and unbiblical) would this be a problem. But you seem to think that even Catholics should "admit defeat" on these doctrines, simply because the explicit teachings aren't found on the face of the Sacred Text. Why?

Catholic apologists admit that for the immaculate conception.

You might want to check out Dr. Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, Steven Ray, and others who are more accomplished than the apologists you might have in mind. I assure you, they're quite familiar with the topic (I've heard and read them).

The rcc has used allegory to make these dogmas. A very dangerous way to interpret Scripture.

...and this is your mere opinion? Or can you point me to a Scripture which says this, clearly?

(By the way: your statement is incorrect; the Church didn't "make" the dogmas; She *defined* them, just as She "defined" the doctrine of the Trinity at the First Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D.)

Interesting that the pope has spoken ex cathedra a handful of times and the majority have been on Mary.

First of all: does the fact that it's "interesting" have any bearing on the discussion? Are you implying something? Using allegory, perhaps? :) (Sorry... just teasing!)

Second: you do know that the Magisterium is not limited to mere "ex cathedra" statements by the Holy Father, right? Those are rare, and are used only at greatest need (i.e. when there's a grave controversy about the Faith which the Holy Father needs to settle definitively). The dogmatic degrees of all the ecumenical councils (including Trent) are of equal weight to ex cathedra statements, you know.

[MeganC]

Amen! Well said!

[ealgeone]

But as to your point, let me ask: if, for the sake of argument, I grant your claim (which is not true, BTW) that there is no explicit proof for the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption in Scripture...

From the catholic encyclopedia online. It bills itself as the most authoritative source on catholicism. Also to clarify, I only said this about the immaculate conception. Though I do not find any support in Scripture for Mary being assumed. There is a lot of wishful thinking and couldn't it have happened reasoning in the rcc to support the assumption. The rcc is practicing eisogesis v exogesis.

Other catholic apologists have noted this as well.

Regarding the immaculate conception.....

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056

[Alamo-Girl]

Praise God!!!

[YHAOS]

OK

[roamer_1]

Where did Christ establish a Bible?

Technically, beginning with Moses on Sinai.

Where did Christ say his Church would be based on a Bible?

It isn't. It is based upon contracts within the Bible.

Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?

The same place as verse numbering and chapters... an artifice of convenience.

Why is Philemon on the Bible?

Because YHWH wants it there.

Why did Luther remove Maccabees 1,500 years after Christ established His Church?

He didn't. Maccabees was never sanctioned and it is full of error...

[paladinan]

Okay... so... granting that point, for the sake of argument: can you progress to the SECOND portion of my question (which you didn’t include in your quote)?

[redleghunter]

That’s all well and good... but it doesn’t give even a hint as to how specific books were accepted or rejected from the Canon of Scripture.

That premise would apply if Scriptures were not Divinely Inspired. It also shows the mindset you approach from. Man-made.

Did you review the Scriptures posted? Or are you approaching the subject as would a skeptic or atheist who deny the Scriptures are Inspired?

[RnMomof7]

So... how, in your view, were the contents of Scripture decided, and on what authority?

The NT church HAD the OT scriptures.. that were given to the Jews and placed in their care ..The NT church considered Pauls letters as scripture even as they were being written..

The 1st century church complied the books written by those that where written by those that had known Christ during His ministry and death , NT scriptures differed from one bishopric to another,with differing opinions as to which books were canonical ..... by the "authority of the Holy Spirit a canon was developed

As much as Rome would like to claim THEY gave the church the canon of scripture..the truth is Rome did not have a closed Canon until trent

Now once again where does Rome get it's "authority " from

[YHAOS]

“however; worshiping the bible seems to be a pitfall of many so-called protestants..

“Worshiping” the Bible? Hardly. The Bible is The Word. It is Christ whom we worship.

[redleghunter]

So... how, in your view, were the contents of Scripture decided, and on what authority?

The very premise of your question is fallacious. You are approaching with the preconception that men have such authority over God's Words. They don't. You have to establish that such men have that authority from God. And if they do where is it specifically they were given to judge what are and are not God's Inspired Words?

So start there.

[YHAOS]

Thanks for the comeback.

“In these debates it often comes down to "who do you believe?" As for me, the answer is: I believe God.”

A-Men

[paladinan]

[paladinan]
That’s all well and good... but it doesn’t give even a hint as to how specific books were accepted or rejected from the Canon of Scripture.

[redleghunter]
That premise would apply if Scriptures were not Divinely Inspired. It also shows the mindset you approach from. Man-made.

(?) I'm not sure you understand. Go back in time (in your imagination) to the point before even the Jewish Scriptures (what we call the OT) were compiled in one place and recognized as Scripture. The process was not neat and clean; there were spurious books claiming to be Scripture in almost every age (cf. some books claiming to be in the OT were 3 and 4 Maccabees, Jubilees, 1 Enoch, etc.; do a search for "Pseudepigrapha", and you'll find plenty; some books claiming to be in the NT were Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, etc.)

Now, consider this logically (without any emotional sentiment--however understandable--getting in the way): if the Bible isn't "settled" yet... i.e. if a definitive "table of contents" hadn't been decided yet... then one can't simply "consult the Scriptures" to see which books should be in the Scriptures! Don't you see? It'd be like asking a person who isn't yet conceived in his mother's womb about what name he would prefer to have! (I agree that it'd be a polite and sound thing to do, save for only one problem: it's logically impossible, since the person doesn't yet exist in order to ask him!)

Not only do none of the Biblical books name any specific books as "Scripture" (St. Peter refers to some of the writings of St. Paul as Scripture, but he never specifies *which ones* are Scripture... and if we weren't yet confident that 2 Peter is Scripture, ITSELF (you may be aware, from your biblical studies, that 2 Peter was rather hotly contested--see "Muratorian Fragment", and other topics, on that), then its "endorsement" would be worthless! (I assume you don't accept the Book of Mormon; so you wouldn't accept the NT simply because the Book of Mormon says they're true, right?)

Does that clarify? No, I have no desire to "disprove the Scriptures"; I merely point out (among other things) that the Scriptures are not meant to be used ALONE, and that they never make that claim for themselves. I (along with any faithful, well-informed Catholic) esteem all 73 books of the Bible as the true Written Word of God, inerrant and God-breathed, never fear.

[bike800]

For the record...not all who apply for one are granted an annulment. Means has nothing to do with it. And to make sure I understand your point...if we are all in error... Our eternal fate is at stake...we are left to our own devices and interpretations and hope we are right when we die...
I still would like to know where in scripture can we find the list of inspired scripture to be used in scripture

[bike800]

Well...the news had three separate beliefs on scripture that made up the Old Testament...some believed only the first five books were inspired and the rest was bunk...

Sti doesn’t answer the question...on whose authority were those books and letters now present in the canon of scripture actually placed into the canon...and on whose authority were many books and letters rejected as inspired...

[redleghunter]

Does that clarify? No, I have no desire to "disprove the Scriptures"; I merely point out (among other things) that the Scriptures are not meant to be used ALONE, and that they never make that claim for themselves.

I understand your approach now.

Genesis 3:

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.

And to which the above line of reasoning, and your own, Jesus answered:

Matthew 4:

“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

“It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”

“Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

And yet, if these Scriptures required men 'to sort them out'; then after sorting such where did the Roman See gain its authority? If you cast the very 'compiling' of Scriptures in a shady man-made corner, then even the Scriptures Rome claims as its authority are in question.

Oh..I see now that is why we have to listen to the Pope and the self proclaimed magesterium. Because without an infallible source to make the supposed infallible source infallible makes it quite fallible.

Maybe you now see why this former Roman Catholic sees such self proclaimed 'authority' quite an exercise in circular reasoning.

[paladinan]

The NT church HAD the OT scriptures that were given to the Jews and placed in their care

They had at least TWO DIFFERENT CANONS of IT Scriptures--the Alexandrian Canon (46 books), and the Palestinian Canon (39 books); BOTH were used during the time of Christ and the time of His apostles. (The Alexandrian Canon was also known as the "Septuagint", from the account which says that 70 different scholars [Gk: septa-ginta = seventy] translated the Sacred Texts from Hebrew to Greek, over the course of roughly 200 years, c. 250 B.C. to 50 B.C.)

Since you follow one (the Palestinian), and I follow the other (Alexandrian), we still have a problem. But since I don't use "sola Scriptura", I'm not on to prove my canon from Scripture. You, on the other hand, are. And since you made the original claim in your original post (you're the OP of the thread), it's not unreasonable for me to ask you to make your case logically firm, first. Saying [x], and then replying to objectors, "Well, prove [not x] to me, first, then!", isn't exactly kosher (pun not intended).

Also, there were also plenty of spurious books which were "contending" to be part of the OT Canon; look up "Pseudepigrapha", as I mentioned to redleghunter.

..The NT church considered Pauls letters as scripture even as they were being written.. The 1st century church complied the books written by those that where written by those that had known Christ during His ministry and death,

They compiled books which CLAIMED to be written by those people. Some were certainly authentic; others were not. Some were "caught" and weeded out in the lifetime of the apostles; others were not. The issue was not settled in the 1st century, or in the 2nd, or even in the 3rd; it wasn't until the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the 3rd Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)--almost into the 5th century A.D., and well after all of the Apostles had died.

NT scriptures differed from one bishopric to another,with differing opinions as to which books were canonical ..... by the "authority of the Holy Spirit a canon was developed

Back up. When, exactly, was this done? And where, and by whom? If you simply say, "by the authority of the Holy Spirit, a canon was developed", the Catholic Church would agree with you, 100%... because you don't say anything which the Church doesn't believe, here. Where you differ, I think, is in the idea that the Catholic Church was the God-ordained vehicle through which He guided His Church to the true canon.

As much as Rome would like to claim THEY gave the church the canon of scripture..the truth is Rome did not have a closed Canon until trent

Yes, and no. No, in the sense that the canon authorized by the councils mentioned above (and ratified by the Pope, a few years later) have been in use since the 5th century, without alteration... and all of Christendom accepted it for hundreds of years. (When Luther rejected 2 Maccabees, for example, he was going against roughly 1000 years of formal Christian practice, and against 1500 years of informal acceptance by everyone since before the time of Christ on Earth. Yes, in the sense that the Church was forced to declare the canon solemnly against those who decided to question it (after 1000 years)... just as the Church formally "defined" the dogma of the Trinity in 325 A.D. The Church didn't "create" the canon at Trent, any more than She "created" the Blessed Trinity at Nicaea; She merely declared the truth infallibly, so as to settle the controversy over the matter.

Now once again where does Rome get it's "authority " from

From Christ, Himself. He built One Church (Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 4:5, etc.) as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15)... as Scripture and Christian history both testify.

[verga]

Funny stuff, completely false, but downright hilarious.

[CynicalBear]

>>I tend to agree with you but I believe Peter is not to be taken lightly in view of the other things Jesus said.<<

No one has ever, that I know of, said that Peter should be taken lightly.

>>And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.<<

A couple of comments on that. First of all, when Jesus said "whatever you bind" and "whatever you loose" He was using a plural form of the word "you". He used the exact same word here.

Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

So to say that Jesus was speaking to Peter alone is in error.

Second, when Jesus said "will be bound" and "will be loosed" He used a word that means "it exists". So when the apostles were to declare something "bound" or "loosed" it already exists in heave. In other words, they don't make the rules, they only enforce the rules that already exist.

Third, when Jesus says "I will give you the keys" He was also talking to all of the apostles and not just Peter.

Fourth the comment "I will give you the keys" goes back to the Old Testament where an individual was given the "keys" to the Kings house. When one came to seek the king's help or counsel, the servant's job was to open the door to the king's house and assist him in reaching the king. The ministry, and all of us really, have a similar responsibility to assist those God is calling in coming to their King, Jesus Christ. In Luke 11:52 we find this.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

The "keys" Jesus was talking about was the knowledge we need to gain salvation. That is all contained in scripture. Those "keys" have been passed down to everyone one of us from the apostles through the words they wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.