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:

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,

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

[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)?

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

And again, I'll ask: SO WHAT? Unless you're claiming that "it must be in the Bible to be true", then you have no case at all. (That, and we'll have to delete the quadratic formula, Fermat's Last Theorem, the atomic number of Uranium, etc., from all our textbooks, since the Bible doesn't mention them.)

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.

Of course, it's clear! One is saved by persevering to the end (Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13), as Our Lord Jesus said, Himself.

Or, rather, one is saved by Baptism (1 Peter 3:21)!

Or, rather, one is saved by...

Do you see my point? Any approach to Scripture which says "It's nothing but ___!" has a high risk of being wrong; the Bible is too rich and organically connected to boil down to a few verses of "Bible Bingo" or alleged "proof texts". When all the requirements and possibilities for salvation are compiled, it looks an awful lot like the teaching of the Catholic Church.

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.

Ah, but that would be a violation of "sola Scriptura!" If your opinion isn't in Scripture, then your own standards insist that I not believe you... right? There DOES need to be a clear passage of Scripture which teaches your opinion, or else (thanks to your adherence to sola Scriptura) you have no basis for saying that it's true. You can talk about "context" until you're blue in the face... but unless the context teaches exactly what you claim it teaches, you're done. Otherwise, the rallying cry of "context, context" can be nothing more than a sort of "magical incantation" by which someone dismisses anything he doesn't like, or anything with which he doesn't agree.

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.

Nothing? The very same Fathers of the Church, whom RnMomOf7 (the OP) thinks are authoritative enough to cite as supports for "sola Scriptura" (though she misinterprets them badly), disagree with you strongly! Go and read their accounts of the Blessed Virgin as the New Eve (and as the New Ark of the Covenant); they quote Scripture left and right, and the connections are stunning!

It's also eisogesis....reading something into Scripture that isn't there.

Well... with all due respect: I've heard anti-Catholic-Church people use the word "eisegesis" (4th letter = "e") as a sort of "incantation" to dismiss any interpretation which they happen not to like. When used like that, it's a simple "self-sealing argument" (i.e. a textbook fallacy--akin to saying, "Everyone's out to get me! Of course they won't admit it, and they're all good at hiding it; what do you expect?" There's no argument that can't be countered by it... but there's no compelling evidence for the original claim, either. Claims of eisegesis have to be proven (and that's rather difficult, at times), not simply claimed.

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.

I've never heard John 21:25 cited as evidence for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (and it'd be a bit silly, since Jesus wasn't on Earth when the Blessed Virgin was assumed into Heaven; St. John was almost certainly alive when it happened, but it seems likely that he was referencing Jesus' earthly ministry in John 21:25... not events which were decades in the future). I *have* heard John 21:25 used (and rightly so) to rebuke the silly idea that "if it isn't in the Bible, no believer is bound to believe it"! The Bible never pretends to be all-inclusive of revealed truth... and the idea of "Bible alone" literally came out of *nowhere*, for no logical reason (and probably for the illogical reason of saying "anything but the Catholic Church!").

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.

That's true, up to a point... but even that good point has one strong limitation: neither the LDS nor the Catholic Church use the false idea of "sola Scriptura"... and so long as sola Scriptura is false, no one need worry about falling afoul of it. No, we're not free to conjure up just ANYTHING; it can't CONTRADICT the Scriptures, for one thing, and it should have reasonable EXTERNAL evidence, in order to entertain the idea in the first place. I, for example, could only reasonably assume that there's a live chicken in my attic if I get at least some *evidence* (of my senses, from reliable testimony, etc.) that there is, in fact, a chicken in the attic. The way you talk here, you sound as if Catholics invented the idea of Mary's Assumption on a pure lark, with no historical or testimonial evidence at all!

BTW...I am not a Mormon and totally disagree with their postions.

All right. (I'm not LDS, either, and I disagree with many of their positions, as well.) But again: the Bible isn't the only reason to believe something to be true (e.g. the coronation of Charlemegne, Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, etc.), nor does the Bible make any claim to that effect. So why are you insisting on something which the Bible doesn't demand (which, ironically, makes sola Scriptura invalid in the eyes of sola Scriptura)? We, at least, have Church History to testify to the death of St. Joseph, the end of Blessed Mary's earthly life (it's unknown whether she died or not, before being assumed); you have nothing, whatever, to demonstrate "SOLA Scriptura". You've demonstrated the IMPORTANCE of Scriptura, but no one has shown why SOLA should be attached to it.

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.

Again: the fact that the Bible doesn't testify to it says nothing, one way or the other. If the Bible is silent, then we either rely on other trustworthy evidence, or we investigate to see if evidence can be found, or we abandon the idea. For anyone to say, "The Assumption never happened, since it isn't mentioned in the Bible" is simply not logical; it would have been logical to say, "The Bible explicitly says that Mary was never assumed, but her body corrupted in the grave!"--except for the fact that the Bible says no such thing. There are hints about the Assumption in the Bible (e.g. the woman "having a place prepared for her in the desert"--Revelation 12:6, the fact that two assumptions had already happened, with Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-12), etc.), but the lion's share of information comes from the Church Fathers, who spoke of the Assumption as if it were long-established fact... and no one started screaming, "What! Unbiblical! How dare you introduce this novelty!" It's a bit like your point about St. Joseph dying (which is attested by the Church Fathers, as well); absent any other information to the contrary, we can assume (no pun intended) that St. Joseph died a natural death. (St. Joseph is actually venerated in the Church as the "Patron of a Happy Death", since he presumably died in the arms of Blessed Mary and the Lord Jesus--how better aa way to die?)

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.

I'd gently disagree with the idea that it's a detour. The very last words of Blessed Mary in the Gospels are "Do whatever He [Jesus] tells you!" She still says that... and all faithful, well-ionformed Catholics are aware of that. No true devotion to the Blessed Virgin will in any way detract from pursuing Jesus, Our Lord and God.

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.

No sane person worships Mary (in the modern sense of "adoration due to God alone"--there's an old English definition of "worship" which worked... since it originally meant "worth-ship", or "condition of being worthy", just as "sportsmanship" is the condition of being "sportsmanlike")... and the Catholic Church condemns any such "worship" (the specific term is "adoration", or "latria" in Latin) of anyone or anything other than God. (The Catechism is specific on that point... though many non-Catholics don't bother to confirm that.)