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.

[CynicalBear]

>>I still would like to know where in scripture can we find the list of inspired scripture to be used in scripture<<

Well, let's make this really simple and leave it up to the individual to decide for themselves. We all agree that what is in scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would also think we could all agree that when the apostles wrote an epistle and instructed the recipients to share them they wrote all that was needed for salvation. Surely it would be a stretch to think that the apostles would have seen every convert in person. I think we can also agree that word of mouth is not the best way to transmit information accurately especially through multiple tellings.

So now we have a choice. Put our faith in what we all agree are the infallible writings of the apostles or put our trust in those who claim to have gotten information through multiple tellings over centuries. I've seen how stories change through multiple tellings. I'll stay with the known source and put my faith and trust in Christ alone. You decide for yourself who you will trust.

[CynicalBear]

>>Well...the news had three separate beliefs on scripture that made up the Old Testament<<

I'm assuming you meant Jews not news. I would like to see your source documentation for that.

>>on whose authority were those books and letters now present in the canon of scripture actually placed into the canon.<<

That has been covered pretty thoroughly in these forums and rehashing it won't affect what you believe evidently. At least I'll not waste my time.

[MamaB]

Why was Kennedy granted one when there were children?

[ealgeone]

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)?

That is the point. There's nothing in Scripture you can solidly point to and say here is the immacualte conception.

We can do that on other points of Christianity. For example, how is one saved. John 3:15-16 gives us the answer. It's clear.

Now, take the catholic way at interpresting Scripture from an allegorical perspective, which is how the IC and assumption came to be defined. And no, there isn't a verse on that, but there doesn't need to be. A reading of the text tells us what we need to know, especially when you keep it in context.

The whole arugment of Mary being the new Eve is what drives a lot of this. It's a nice thought, but scripturally we have nothing that tells us that Mary is the New Eve. That's where the allegory angle comes in.

It's also eisogesis....reading something into Scripture that isn't there. Catholics do this with John 21:25. Just because not everything Jesus ever did was written down do we begin to assume he did other things. This is partly the justification for the assumption.

For example, the Mormons could claim this verse to justify their belief that Jesus appeared to the Indians in North America. Is there anything in Scripture saying He didn't? No. Is there anything in Scripture that said He did? No. So from the Mormon perspective they can claim He did because we can't prove He didn't. BTW...I am not a Mormon and totally disagree with their postions.

This is what catholicism has done with the assumption. We have no record of Mary dying. We don't have record of Joseph dying either for that matter. Was he assumed also? Did Mary die? We don't know; but odds are pretty high she did. Was she taken up before she died? We don't know. We have no solid evidence she was or wasn't. It's a nice thought, but it is not supported by Scripture. None of the apostles wrote about it. John didn't address it and his Gospel is the last one written. We have no eyewitnesses to it.

Besides, it is a detour to the message of the Gospel. The gospels are about Christ and how Christ came to save us. That should be the focus.

Instead, the rcc has put up a detour with all of this business of mary. It's a distraction from the purpose of the Gospel. Who benefits from this? Satan.

If more people are focused on praying to Mary, worshipping Mary, etc, the less attention is paid to Jesus. And that is the goal of Satan.

[redleghunter]

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.

How do you know? You stated Christ never wrote anything down and never commanded Scriptures written down. So like a New England Patriot's football, the argument is underinflated and runs flat.

[bike800]

I can’t comment on a situation I know nothing about...but I do know that some are not granted...

[boatbums]

See...ANOTHER falsehood! No, the Roman Catholic church is NOT the "best chance to see the other side of the pearly gates", there is only one way, truth and life and it is Jesus Christ. No "church" can save anyone, I don't care how much they proclaim, insist, DEMAND and threaten. Perhaps one day y'all will understand this before it's too late and you are smoking in the permanent smoking section.

[HarleyD]

The early church fathers separated the writing of the Church from the “inspired and inerrant” Word of God. This they call they Bible.

So the real question is what tradition are you following? The tradition of the early church or the tradition of the Council of Trent?

[paladinan]

I understand your approach now.

Hm. Not only mind-reading, but saying that I'm using Satan's own methods. (You aren't suggesting that I'm Satan or one of his servants, are you?) Is this your way of being classy?

Re: your point: I'll leave it to the reader to see that there was nothing, whatever, in my comment which merited ANYTHING of what you said, here. This is patently an effort to demonize your opponent, and avoid the logic altogether.

Should I alert the Religion Mod to your own "methods"? Or would you care to apologize for that crass remark, and try to discuss the *issues*, like logical people would do?

[metmom]

which is why they leave the Catholic Church and go find a Christian church that does remarry...

They don't need to leave the Catholic church to leave their spouse.

All they have to do is pay someone off and get an annulment.

annulment = RCC sanctioned divorce

[metmom]

Paul tells us who *petra* is.

And it isn't Peter.

Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.

It simply cannot get any plainer.

....the Rock (petra) was Christ.

[redleghunter]

Yes, folks can judge for themselves.

Never called you Satan or Satan’s servant.

Did not mind-read either.

Just pointed out that both approaches to God’s Word were similar.

Also pointed out what Christ used authoritatively.. His own Words, which He said “it is written.”

If you can present evidence that the Roman Catholic church preceded the written scriptures show it here.

[metmom]

The Catholic church has left its parishioners high and dry as far as interpreting Scripture. They condemn YOPIOS and yet won’t even provide an infallible one for their congregants.

Well, then, Catholics have no complaint when anyone wants to interpret Scripture as the Holy Spirit leads them.

[verga]

Whistling past the graveyard, will not save prots.

[hosepipe]

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

---

I’ve been to many protestant churchs been member to many kinds as well..
sure looks like worship to me.. basic idolotry it is..

much like RCC does with statues and orders and ceremony and other stuff....

of course all deny their worship is worship.. but it is..
I know what worship actually is.. can’t fool me...

Little difference between Totems, Amulets, JuJu Bags and worship..

Not that I have a problem with it.. liberals worship givernment too.. and many football..
Having a GOD is free choice with me..

Designer GODS galore out there.. but
I doubt a real God would want or need worship.. as the golden rule implys..
Worship appears to be such a pagan thing.. distant, impersonal..

[metmom]

In post 78 you stated that Scripture wasn’t adequate for the believer for growth and maturity in Christ and I provided you a verse out of Scripture to show that Scripture states that very thing, that it IS adequate.

You have no basis for criticizing anyone’s personal interpretation of Scripture since your church has neglected to provide an infallible interpretation of the entire Bible.

Therefore, since they’ve left everyone high and dry to fend for themselves, the RCC has no basis for complaint.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit guides believers into spiritual truth and understanding just as Jesus opened the minds of the disciples to understand Scripture.

[metmom]

I did post that verse in my reply.

It was either unread, ignored, or totally lost due to deception.

[CynicalBear]

>>Worship appears to be such a pagan thing.. distant, impersonal..<<

I'm sure it is to you. I don't suppose you have given any thought to about what happens when you die?

[redleghunter]

Should I alert the Religion Mod to your own "methods"? Or would you care to apologize for that crass remark, and try to discuss the *issues*, like logical people would do?

I did address the issues. By your statements, your faith relies on what the Roman Catholic church tells you first. I know this and have been there. Whenever doubt is cast on God's Word in scriptures, it is not Moses, David, the prophets, nor Jesus Christ and His disciples casting that doubt. It is either Satan, the Pharisees et. al.

That is why I quoted what I did. Jesus made is crystal clear by word, deed, action He was the Messiah. If you can show me where Jesus quotes oral tradition in His truth claims, show it here. I can show you where He quoted from the very Word He inspired over the ages.

[Elsie]

Only to those that hate the truth.

Mary is dead.