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.

[metmom]

If you want the courtesy of someone answering you, you ought to show them the same respect and answer theirs. Cause we all know, because we've all seen, that the initial question never gets answered.

Irony, thy name is metmom.

Show me where I've ever used that tactic.

[redleghunter]

There sure is an awfully strong concerted effort on the part of the RC's to call into question the integrity of Scripture.

Yes, and the reason I presented Satan on Scriptures vs. Jesus Christ on Scriptures.

[ealgeone]

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.)

I wish I'd been keeping up with how many times catholics use this poorly constructed argument....not all truth is in the Bible. Good grief. I almost quit reading right there.

The Bible makes no claims on those topics. However, where the Bible does deal with science or history, it is correct. It's not a math book or science book. It is God's revelation to us.

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.

Were you aware Psalms says "there is no God?"

Now, if you heard someone stand up and say that you might think....wow. I've never heard that in the Bible before.

But if you read the context of this in Psalms 14:1 you get the following:

For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

That extra bit of context makes a difference does it not?

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 agree...we can't just make stuff up.

But, if you're not relying upon the written word for God's truth, then what are you relying on?

A questionable appearance at Fatima? Or any other of the "Mary" appirations?

What is your standard by which to measure truth? Maybe the Koran? the Book of Mormon? maybe the Beatles?

However, that is exactly what the rcc has done with mary and the immaculate conception.

By not relying on any scriptural support for this, and not understanding that all have sinned, and a very poor interpretation of Luke 1:28, this "dogma" has been declared.

There is ample evidence in the Word where Mary's own words and actions declare she is a sinner. Yet the rcc completely ignores these and issues the dogmatic statement on her being sinless.

You are aware that the ECFs were not in 100% agreement on this issue...or many other the rcc claims are supported by the ECFs. Peter being the first pope is one of these.

I suggest you check those. Very eye opening.

And in ignoring context again, the rcc declares mary to be ever-virgin....without reading the texts that shows Jesus had brothers and sisters. And please, don't try to use the "cousin" or "children from another marriage" argument. Those have been so debunked it would be embarrassing to engage those.

So again, context is everything.

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;

Stay on this board long enough and you will!

St. John was almost certainly alive when it happened, but it seems likely that he was referencing Jesus' earthly ministry in John 21:25...

Now is that your own personal interpretation of Scripture? Is there "official teaching from Rome" on this? But I commend you on this as you observed from context what John was referring to. I agree he was referencing Jesus. Why? Because that's what the context of his gospel was about.

If John were "almost certainly" alive don't you think he'd included that in his Gospel. That would be a pretty big deal I would think. That he didn't include it is telling.

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!").

The Bible is clear it is not all inclusive. I don't think you'll ever hear a Christian say that.

The very reason we have the NT is because the early church was experiencing people who were doing just what the rcc is doing today....continuing ongoing revelation of "truth". The church wanted a written record of books that could be read in the church. One of the main requriements was that the book had to have been written by an apostle or one associated with an aposted like Luke. By the end of the 2nd century we had the four Gospels, Acts and Paul's letters as being used by the early church. What the Bible does tell though is all we need on how to be saved.

If you take all of the context,(there's that word again) of the NT, you will see it comes down to faith in Christ. Only believe in His Name. He's fairly clear on this. Does this mean we follow Him and do those things He asks us to? You betcha it does. But do we have to do those things to keep salvation? No, sir. For if we did then we'd have something to brag about....look how many or how much of X I've done.

No, Jesus died on the cross for our sins where those sins remain. They are covered by His blood....100%. Big ones and small ones.

A believer can't be good enough to get into Heaven and bad enough to stay out because of His shed blood.

That is what separates Christianity from all other beliefs.

[Iscool]

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 couldn't be more wrong...That's not the way God wrote the bible...Just like in the parables, God wrote the scriptures in a way that would weed out the non believers...That's why you can't find 'sola scripture' (or anything else) in the bible while we can see it everywhere we look...

[Iscool]

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.

To the end of what??? I'll bet you don't even know...

[metmom]

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.

Don't eat the blood, the life is in the blood

Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.

Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”

Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”

Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.

Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.

Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.

Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.

Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:

“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

[hosepipe]

Even those who die in fires are relieved of the pain when they die. Not so in Gehanna. Eternally burning with no relief from death.

---

So HELL is not just a metaphore to you?.. albeit a damned good one..

IF.... lack of forgiveness is not HELL.. I cannot imagine what is..
sorry... personal experience.. I’ve been there..

[metmom]

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.

Of course Catholics don't like context.

When they have to use it, they cannot cherry pick verses and parts of verses to make Catholic doctrine up with.

[Iscool]

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

Don't need it...God said he would preserve his words forever...

When you find a bible that has the same books that Israel of the Old Testament used you can know that you have the preserved list of inspired scripture...And when you find the New Testament that is coupled with those preserved texts, you know you have the complete bible...Unchanged for thousands of years...Only God could do that...

[metmom]

So HELL is not just a metaphore to you?.. albeit a damned good one..

IF.... lack of forgiveness is not HELL.. I cannot imagine what is.. sorry... personal experience.. I’ve been there..

I'm sure that is part of what hell is but according to Jesus' description of it in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, there is the physical torment aspect of it as well.

[daniel1212]

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

The very premise of your question is fallacious. Y

This has already basically been addressed , and the answer is the same way OT writings had become established as being of God, which were invoked as substantiating Truth claims by which the NT church was established.

If a canon of any length had been established as being authoritative - and it is clear that one did by the time of Christ, as seen by the abundant clear references to OT writings in the New - and which, as with men of God, was essentially due to their distinctive enduring Divine qualities and attestation, then a future settled canon can be realized the same way.

"And on what authority" is a loaded question, as it presupposes a basis for any authority to settle the canon, and then the issue become whether such an authority must be one which cannot err in major universal faith and morality decisions.

To be sure, the OT magisterium was given binding and loosing power to settle disputes, dissent from which was a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) And which corresponds to Mt. 18:15-20, though that also extends into the spiritual realm and therein to believers in general. And Westminster affirms the office of the magisterium.

And certainly it can be assumed that those who sat in the seat of Moses had an important role in establishing OT books, yet what is incontrovertible is that the "laity" discerned both men and writings as being of God without a perpetual infallible magisterium, and which is how he church began.

But which is contrary to what RCs teach, which is that an infallible magisterium is essential to correctly know what Scripture is and means.

Which is the alternative to SS (not only the typical RC strawman of it), and which is what should be the issue.

Recognition of these books as being Divine came from the same source that recognition of OT men and writings being of God came from. That being their unique Heavenly qualities and attestation. And as these writings testify to writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus in principal these writings provided for a canon of Scripture.

Now as concerns your alternative, Where was an infallible magisterium ever essential for men to correctly discern writings of God as being so, as RCs argue, and their meanings?

[daniel1212]

I gets rather tiring to have to constantly repeat the same evidence that disputes their dubious claims, doesn’t it?

Well, it seems after refuting many of the usual crowd then some new ones get recruited to parrot the same.Then RCs complain about anti-Catholics.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Do you ever do anything but debate your own strawmen?

.

[CynicalBear]

>>So HELL is not just a metaphore to you?.<<

NO, gehanna is NOT a metaphor.

>>IF.... lack of forgiveness is not HELL.. I cannot imagine what is.. sorry... personal experience.. I’ve been there..<<

You ain't seen nothing yet if you don't accept Jesus as your savior.

[verga]

Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals

Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.

[verga]

Still waiting on the post police to define “way so.”

[ealgeone]

>Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals <

Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

catholics never cease to amaze me with the ignorance of what their own catechism says.

Next question, please.

[metmom]

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

Perhaps then, some Catholic could explain why, for the last 2,000 years, the RCC has abdicated its responsibility for providing its constituents an *authentic* (probably meaning official) interpretation of the Bible.

It's not like they haven't had plenty of time in which to do it.

[Zuriel]

**John 1:18 ...the only begotten God (Theos)..**

Does your source say “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten God..”? (Jn 3:16)

Think about it.....’begotten God’.......

There is a reason that Jesus Christ and his apostles only used the phrase ‘the Son of God’.

Apparently the staff (most likely trinitarians) that put together the KJV, worded it as closely to the Greek as they could. It was a seven year project, I’m told, so they probably used every source they could find.

They saw fit to use the phrase ‘Son of God’ over 40 times, and not use the phrase ‘God the Son’ even once.

Proves to me that God preserves his word, whether it’s ravens, widows, RC ‘church fathers’, a King James committee, etc.

[verga]

Nice try so close and yet so far, It says "AN" authentic not the only authentic interpretation. and I notice that in your haste to condemn the Church you left out the next paragraph.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48