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.

[FatherofFive]

Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?

Check out the Catechism

How do you know?

Because Jesus told me so. “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13

How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular? Because Jesus told me so. “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13

How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?

Because Jesus told me so. “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13

What is your source for verifying all of the above?

Scripture

Please provide the sources for verification purposes.

Just did

Now, where did the table of contents of the bible come from?

[mikeus_maximus]

Ping

[circlecity]

"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"

The NT was completed within the first centeury. So the earliest Christians were listening to these letters being read almost from the beginning. It's not like the books of the new testament were written then kept in a drawer until someone decided to complile them into the "NT". The letters of the NT are just the written form of the teaching of the Apostles. These books ARE the tradition taught by the Apostles. Thus, "tradition" died with the apostles and we are left with the NT as the only "God breathed" revelation.

[mikeus_maximus]

I’ll try to respond fully later, but for now, consider whether it’s possible Luther removed Macabees, because the human bureaucracy which grew to become the Catholic Church added it centuries after Christ established His church. It was not considered part of canon by either Jewsih scholars or the local congregations that tested and passed around the 27 books of the New Testament. The Council of Nicea only declared what the local churches had already known for decades.

[paladinan]

Interesting that Catholics can’t sell Catholicism on its own merits. Trying to make the other guy look worse than you and then trying to convince people to join you...

Hm. It seems that your own post is doing just that, yes? Especially with snark such as "Did you pass high school English?" I think we can discuss the material, and not take digs at other commenters in the process, can't we?

Also, isn't your comment here what the RM would call "mind-reading"? How do you know that any Catholic is "trying to make the other guy look worse than [them] and then trying to convince people to join [them] because [they’re] not as bad as the other guy and its better than nothing"? I've been a Catholic for over 40 years, and I've never heard any Catholic say anything even close to that. Have you? (Seriously? "Come join the Catholic Church, it's better than nothing?")

Also, with all due respect: I've never seen you engage the key questions (without red herrings and other non-engagements) which FatherOfFive raised, with any seriousness. Care to try, now?

Case in point: if the Bible doesn't teach "sola Scriptura" (i.e. the Bible repeatedly says that it's important and necessary, but it never says that it's the SOLE rule of Faith... nor does it ever say that it was ever DESIGNED to be used ALONE), then isn't it illogical of you to promote sola Scriptura?

[FatherofFive]

Jesus did not speak Greek. Check the Aramaic.

[OneWingedShark]

Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church. They will arise, endure sometimes for centuries, like Protestantism, but we can be confident in Christ’s promise that the Church will always teach the Truth.

One of those heresies is the papist tradition.
Don't you know that we as Christians have direct access to Christ, and therefore have no need of a pope or priest on earth — the whole book of Hebrews should settle this:

(Heb 5:1-3, 7:18-28, 9:24-28)
Every high priest chosen from among mortals is put in charge of things pertaining to God on their behalf, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is subject to weakness; and because of this he must offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people

---

There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God.

This was confirmed with an oath; for others who became priests took their office without an oath, but this one became a priest with an oath, because of the one who said to him,
 “The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind,
 ‘You are a priest forever’”—
accordingly Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant.

Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests those who are subject to weakness, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

---

For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

But, if you wish to claim Peter's authority in the church, do you not know that he himself endorsed the notion of the Priesthood of All Believers?

(1 Pet 9:10)
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Once you were not a people,     but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy,     but now you have received mercy.

and, indeed, we see James imploring us to mediate/intercede for each other:

(Jas 5:13-20)
Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.

My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

[Dr. Thorne]

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 16:18

Christ used the word petros = a stone for Peter. In the same verse He says, "on this rock..." In this case he uses the word petra = a large rock. Why the change?

Because He was not building His church on Peter, but on the truth spoken by Peter two verses earlier:

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Christ is the rock, the firm foundation, the truth on which He built His church. People are not swayed to come to the Lord by Peter, but by knowing the truth of who Christ is.

[mikeus_maximus]

If you’re truly seeking the historical and scriptural truth, these links will help: http://www.bible.ca/canon.htm

If not... well, life is a series of decisions that lead to consequences, right? The Word tests the hearts of men. Lk. 8.

[OneWingedShark]

Trying to make the other guy look worse than you and then trying to convince people to join you because you’re not as bad as the other guy and its better than nothing, is no way to sell anything.

That's exactly how the Republican party has branded itself; I think that with this landslide in November coupled with their usual spineless crap, a lot of people are waking-up/getting-pissed… and that's a good thing, IMO.

[FatherofFive]

Christ used the word petros = a stone

Christ did not speak Greek. Check the Aramaic

[MeganC]

With all of the questions flying around I have one of my own: In what Scripture does the Catholic Church claim authority for having their leaders wear silk robes, red slippers, and for them to live in palaces?

Bonus question: Why do RCC leaders live surrounded by unfathomable wealth all while telling everyone else that if you live in wealth it’s practically a sin?

[FatherofFive]

Don't you know that we as Christians have direct access to Christ, and therefore have no need of a pope or priest on earth

Except that Christ established a Church to teach the Truth.

[Phinneous]

Maybe Luther followed the Men of the Great Assembly? (Who removed Maccabees from the Jewish Canon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Assembly

[OneWingedShark]

>> Don't you know that we as Christians have direct access to Christ, and therefore have no need of a pope or priest on earth > > Except that Christ established a Church to teach the Truth. And? That has nothing to do with a papacy... unless you're asserting that the papacy IS the church, which we can clearly see is not the case (look at who the letters in Revelation are addressed to, as well as many of the Pauline letters — in each the church so referred is the group-of-believers and not only the leadership/structure).

[delchiante]

The Messiah is Torah made flesh and dwelt among us..

He gave His Word to Israel.. and came down here and bound and clarified adultery and murder. And loosened the Sabbath from the hands of men who put burdens on the people..

The plan of salvation can be seen in the sky.. His creation tells the story before He ever had it written on parchment..

The next events are the outpouring of His Spirit and the return of the Lion of Judah..

And this ignorant gentile can see that by looking up in His sky..

We are blessed to have it written down but one need not read to see..

Through Israel, He blessed the whole world..
We have the written oracles, Torah. We have the living oracles , Yahshua, and the prophets who quoted our Heavenly Father all because Israel was chosen..

Praise Yah I am grafted in to that life line to Truth!

And His top ten laws are the fullness of the recordings of Yahshua when He confirms to us to love Yah with all our heart, mind, soul and strength.. and love our neighbor as ourselves..

Paul preached from Torah and the prophets.. not Mathew, mark, Luke and john... sometimes I don’t think we fully understand that because we have it all written down in a nice, orderly pattern..

That is why Paul’s gospel has passover, unleavened bread and first fruits..

He wouldn’t know good Friday and easter Sunday unlike us today who seem to ignore Paul’s gosel according to ‘scripture’ ( old testament) for well, to be blunt, Rome’s gospel...

[editor-surveyor]

.

First, Yeshua did not establish any church!

He told his disciples that he would Build/expand his already existing assembly/congregation. His congregation began “in the beginning.”

Second, Before making any doctrinal declaration, he always preceeded it with the phrase “It is written.”

It was written. In his ancient Tanakh, which is our rules for living, minute by minute, day by day.

Luther removed Maccabees because he didn’t understand its importance in establishing that Judea was always Hebrew, not in any Greek oriented. This was error that had been deliberately created by Constantine for his effort to wipe Israel out of history, so that his pagan circus could take its place.

If Philemon troubles you, you need to pray to find out why.

Most book publishers do place an index, or table of contents at or near the beginning of the book; why does that bother you?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Jesus did not speak Greek. Check the Aramaic.”

It sounds as if your view of Christ’s divinity doesn’t include omniscience... Or omnipotence. I suggest you take a moment to reflect...

[mikeus_maximus]

“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”

The first century Christians didn’t have some bureaucracy or councils deciding doctrine for them either. They had apostles and those in the local churches who would prophecy when they were given the gifts of prophecy, tongues, interpretation, and knowledge by the Holy Spirit through the apostles laying on their hands. But that temporary system of revealing was going away, when all truth that Christians needed was revealed and written down:

“But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.” I Corinthians 13:9-10.

[odawg]

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

Jerome (a Catholic) was the first to translate the Bible (300 A.D. or about). He did not think that the Apocrypha was valid for establishing doctrine, so he did not include it.