Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
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:
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.
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.
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:
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).
Those are not real answers. Catholics quote Paul for their support of tradition. Fine. Then tell us what traditions Paul taught that he didn’t include in Scripture that are so important that we know for salvation and maturity.
For one thing, you can’t depend on Scripture to give you authority if you don’t recognize its inherent authority over the church. That’s pulling yourself up by your boot straps.
And another, quoting the same verses to answer all the questions isn’t an answer. There’s no documentation. No links to sources or proofs.
*The Catechism*? Where does the CCC specify that its statements are from Paul, from the tradition that he handed down?
And you know that’s from Paul just how?
Prove that Paul taught what’s in the CCC.
Prove that what the CCC is Holy Spirit inspired Truth on par with Scripture.
The church claiming it’s so doesn’t make is so. What are the source documents for verification purposes?
On whose authority do people say the bible is inspired?
Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written,“‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Luke 24:25-27 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”
Luke 24:44-49Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Paul tells us that Scripture equips the believer for every good work, making him complete.
How is *complete, equipped for every good work* not sufficient?
Does *complete* mean *complete*? Or not?
Because the Church is going to put together a set of letters written to communities here and there...declare them as inspired...while knowing that this set of letters will contradict the whole of catholic teaching that had developed in the prior 350 years. Then they will be the only people available that could read and write...painstakingly preserving said inspired letters...all the while worshiping in a manner that is completely contradicted by the letters that they are preserving ...yep makes sense to me
Scripture does teach that it is adequate for the believer.
BTW, no it is not mind reading to state the RC's try to make others look bad. How I know that RC's do that is obvious from the comments most of them make when they attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.
And if you're worried about people making digs at each other, be an equal opportunity chastiser. Post the same to your Catholic colleagues when they take digs at others.
Tell me. Why is God breathed Holy Spirit inspired Scripture NOT authoritative, the standard by which truth claims should be measured, the rule of faith, and enough for equipping every believer completely, making him equppied for EVERY good work?
So then, by that reasoning, (because a specific word or phrase is not found written down in Scripture it's not Scriptural), the Bible must not be “scriptural” and the Holy Trinity must not "scriptural".
Then that must mean that these things are not Scriptural either.
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
holy water
monstrance
sacred tradition
apostolic succession
Benefactress
Mediatrix
Queen of Heaven
Mother of God
beatific vision
Prove it.
OK, so why do Catholics object to Jesus being the Rock on which the church is built?
What’s wrong with that?
The WORD of God is the TRUTH, and it was written down for all to read.
A church will only teach the truth as much as it stays true to Scripture.
.
>> “On whose authority do people say the bible is inspired?” <<
.
If you don’t believe, why would you care?
Unbelievers will not be saved anyway.
.
Thanks for posting.
I am a believer...I do care...and I am interested in people reasoning process..countless times I have heard people use the argument “ because it says so”
Boøkmarking
“Jesus did not speak Greek. Check the Aramaic.”
You probably don’t realize that in saying the above, your argument is that the scripture is flawed and Jesus’ words were mistranslated by Matthew.
Sure that’s what you want to say?
Most of those can be inferred from scripture anyway
All scripture is God breathed.. if you check the gospels you will see that Jesus was sola scriptura. He quoted from it 84 times ...
"He referred to the divine authority of the Old Testament (Mt. 5:17-18; 8:17; 12:40-42; Lk. 4:18-21; 10:25-28; 15:29-31; 17:32; 24:25-45; Jn. 5:39-47). He quoted the Old Testament 78 times, the Pentateuch alone 26 times. He quoted from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, and Malachi. He referred to the Old Testament as “The Scriptures,” “the word of God,” and “the wisdom of God.” The apostles quoted 209 times from the Old Testament and considered it “the oracles of God.” The Old Testament in hundreds of places predicted the events of the New Testament; and as the New Testament is the fulfillment of, and testifies to the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament, both Testaments must be considered together as the Word of God.( God's Plan for Man Jennings Dake.
Where did Christ say his Church would be based on a Bible?
John 5:24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
" The chapter divisions commonly used today were developed by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury. Langton put the modern chapter divisions into place in around A.D. 1227. The Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 was the first Bible to use this chapter pattern. Since the Wycliffe Bible, nearly all Bible translations have followed Langton's chapter divisions."(Got Questions)
Why is Philemon on the Bible?
Because the Holy Spirit inspired it
Why did Luther remove Maccabees 1,500 years after Christ established His Church?
Actually the question should be why did Rome add it to the canon? Even Jerome did not place it in the canon.. Rome had no official canon til trent
"
Like a skipping CD, we hear the above circular 'logical' reasoning daily here. It is like the DNC talking points.
Ankerburg doesn’t provide any verse showing that “the Bible is the sole or ultimate rule of faith.”
I found this particularly amusing:
-— 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-—
How does he jump from the Scriptures helping to prepare presbyters (the “man of God”) for every good work, to the Scriptures being the “perfect guide to the Christian faith?”
The passage doesn’t say that. No passage does.
Yes, the Scriptures contain divine revelation, but the Scriptures require an authority to determine what constitutes Scripture.
History and Scripture tells us that Christ’s Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth.”
Jesus commands us to “listen to the church,” and that those who “ will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.”
Well, is the standard that it's found directly in Scripture or not?
Why is it OK to accept those doctrines because they're inferred in Scripture anyway, but not sola Scriptura?
Why the double standard in demanding proof for a doctrine when it comes to SS and everything else gets a pass?
Why is SS the only one exempt from being allowed to be inferred?
Why do you continue asking those questions after they have been answered multiple times?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.