"What is Truth?" An Examination of Sola Scriptura

This is something all Christians agree on, but this answer does, however, raise more questions: How do we come to know Jesus as truth? How do we get in touch with this Jesus who is truth? We need answers to specific questions, like what should we believe? How shall we behave? How shall we run the church? Jesus may be the Truth, but how do we get hold of that truth? How do we know that what we believe is his truth?

In my evangelical days, I was told the truth was to be found in the Bible and in the Bible alone. In my Fundamentalist Bible lessons at Bob Jones University, I memorized a famous and important verse, 2 Timothy 3.16-17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is useful for doctrine, for instruction, for correction and training in righteousness so the man of God man be fully equipped for every good work."

In other words, we believed that the Bible was where we were to turn to learn what to believe and how to behave. And we were to believe the Bible because it is inspired—it is God-breathed. But there are some problems with this view. A simple problem is that since 2 Timothy 3.16-17 itself is a part of the New Testament, it could not be referring to the New Testament. Paul—in writing to Timothy—could only have been talking about the Old Testament Scriptures.

But let’s say for the sake of argument that this text also refers to the New Testament. While it certainly says that all Scripture is inspired and can be used to determine doctrine and Christian behavior, it doesn’t say that Scripture is the ONLY authority for God’s truth. In fact, nowhere in the Bible do you find such a thing stated. In addition, if this is the only evidence for Biblical inspiration, another problem arises as soon as you start to push things a little.

The problem is this: 2 Timothy 3.16 states: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." This is then used by many to prove that Scripture is inspired. But how do we know that 2 Timothy 3.16 itself is inspired? This reasoning is circular. It goes like this:

"We believe the Bible. OK, why is that? Because it is inspired. Why do we believe it is inspired? Because the Bible says it is inspired and we believe the Bible. OK, how do we know the Bible is inspired? Because the Bible says it is inspired and we believe the Bible because it is inspired." Too much of this type of reasoning makes you dizzy. There has to be a better answer.

I then encountered another difficulty by the time I got to Bible college. I had always been taught that the Bible was simple to understand; that the basic gospel message was simple and straightforward. But if the gospel message was so simple and straightforward, then why were there so many different Christian denominations all in disagreement with one another?

When I asked one of my teachers, I was told that the different denominations agreed on the basics—those things which were plain and simply understood from Scripture—but they disagreed on the extras. However, when I examined for myself what the different denominations taught they not only disagreed on little things—like whether women should wear hats to church, or whether you had to be baptized by immersion or sprinkling—but they also disagreed on important things, like baptism in general, communion, how one can be saved, who was in charge of the church, who was going to heaven, and many other things. If Scripture was the only legitimate source of authority, shouldn’t the Church—or churches—be united around one simple, clear teaching from Scripture?

Another verse I was required to memorize was 2 Peter 1.20: "No scripture is of any private interpretation, but holy men of God spoke as the Holy Spirit instructed them." Obviously all the different Christian denominations disagree because they all have different interpretations of the Bible—which they each believe is the most accurate. It struck me that if they all have different interpretations of the Bible, then they must be interpreting it on their own. But 2 Peter 1.20 warns that the Bible must not be interpreted privately. Something was definitely wrong here.

In the face of these questions a lot of people nowadays give up believing in the inspiration of the Bible. About the disagreements in the Church they say, "Well, sometimes, this side of heaven, you just can’t be sure of the right interpretation. You have to live with these disagreements."

But can that be true? Is it possible that Jesus called himself the Way, the Truth and the Life, promised his apostles that they would know the truth (John 8.32, 16.13, etc.), commanded them to go out into all the world to preach the gospel, if, at the end of the day, they and we can’t really know what is true after all? Is it possible that we have a gospel to proclaim, but God hasn’t provided a certain way for us to know what that gospel consists of and how it is applied? Have we merely ended up like Pontius Pilate, shrugging our shoulders and saying cynically: "Ahh, what is ‘truth’ anyway?"

There are, however, some excellent rock-solid answers for these questions. The Bible IS inspired, but the evidence for its inspiration rests on something more than 2 Timothy 3.16. There is also a sure-fire way to know the right interpretation of the Bible, but the evidence for that sure interpretation is profound and goes to the very roots of Scripture itself.

The Bible didn’t just drop down out of heaven. Although we believe it was inspired by God, this inspiration happened through real people in real situations in real place and time. The Scriptures were written by the people of God, for the people of God. They were read by the people of God, used to teach the people of God, and used for the worship of the people of God. Maybe the best way to describe the Bible is to say that it is the story of the relationship between God and His people—the Church—both the Old Testament Church and the New Testament Church. The Bible was never just a list of things—a theological textbook—about God telling His people what they must believe. Neither was it merely a set of rules to be obeyed. Instead the Bible was first and foremost the story of God’s loving relationship with humanity.

Furthermore, the same people who wrote the Scriptures—used the Scriptures, prayed the Scriptures and learned from the Scriptures—chose which holy writings should be included as Scripture. Before Christ was born the books of what we now call the Old Testament were well established. During the first century of Christianity the gospels and epistle letters were all written either by the apostles chosen by Christ or one of their disciples. By the mid-second century, the early Christians were unanimous in accepting the four gospels and the thirteen letters of Paul. However, also during these early centuries of the Church many, many other writings appeared vying for equal acceptance as apostolic documents. Different local churches accepted varying and sometimes contradictory lists of books as authority, until finally in 382 AD at the Council of Rome the whole Church agreed on a final authoritative Canon of the books of the Old and New Testaments. This is identical to the list found in any contemporary Catholic Bible.

This, therefore, draws our attention to another deep problem with sola scriptura. Not only is the Bible itself impotent to prove its own inspiration or ensure its own interpretation, it could not specify exactly which of the hundreds of books were to be considered inspired Scripture. Another God-given authority needed to do this, and in the very words of the Council of Rome we see this authority identified: "Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun."

In the inspired Scriptures—the canon of which, therefore, being determined by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit—we discover the very authority we need to determine what is truth. In 1 Timothy 3.15, the Apostle Paul says something very important: "...God’s church is the household of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

In Ephesians 3.10, he likewise taught that it was God’s "…intent that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God should be made known."

In other words it is through the Church that we learn the truth about Jesus—not just through the Bible. It is by belonging to the living body of Christ—the Church—that we come to understand and know the mystery of Jesus Christ himself.

Paul says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So the Church is the basis for the truth, the support for the truth. It is on the Church that the whole edifice rests and is supported. It’s no exaggeration to say then that not only did the Church establish and validate the inspiration of the Bible, and determine which specific books were to be considered inspired Scripture, but that without the Church we wouldn’t have a Bible at all.

But the Church did not pass on the teaching of Christ only in written form. From the earliest days the teaching was also passed on in oral form. In his letters to the young bishop Timothy, Paul wrote, "devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching." And, "…continue in what you have learned... because you know those from whom you learned it and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures."

Paul here of course could only have been referring to the Old Testament, which he therefore held as authoritative. But he also believed, however, that his own teaching, both written and preached, were to be taken as authoritative for determining doctrine and right Christian behavior. This is stated most clearly in Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians, 2.15:"So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter." So the teachings which Paul received from Jesus he passed on both in writing and by word of mouth.

There are many who believe that the word of mouth tradition lost its authority as soon as the biblical books were written down, but it is significant to recognize that in the very quote above, Paul acknowledges that both sources of teaching existed side-by-side when he wrote to the Thessalonians. We also see that while Paul was writing what would later be declared inspired Scripture, he was not only receiving oral tradition from others, but continuing to pass it on to his hearers: "By this gospel you are saved if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you…For what I received I passed on to you as of the first importance." (I Corinthians 15. 2-3)

Paul promotes the continuing importance of the oral teaching as well as the written when he tells Timothy: "What you heard from me keep as the pattern of sound teaching with faith and love in Jesus Christ: guard the good deposit which is entrusted to you." (2 Timothy 1.13) Elsewhere he praises the Corinthians for ‘upholding the traditions which I have passed on to you.’ (I Cor.11.2)

Catholics believe that this ancient teaching of the apostles has been handed on from generation to generation and kept alive by the constant and continual life of the Church. Did Paul think this oral teaching was to be passed on? Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2.2: "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others." In other words he commanded Timothy to hand on the oral tradition which he had received from Paul. Its interesting that in this passage Paul is referring to four generations of succession—his own, Timothy’s, the people Timothy would teach and the ones they would teach in turn—which the Church would later identify as the Apostolic Succession.

The documents of the early Church in the years just after the death of the apostles show that they believed their Church leaders had inherited a precious deposit of faith—both in the writings of the apostles and in the oral traditions of the apostles. In about AD 95 Clement, the bishop of the Church in Rome wrote to the Church at Corinth: "the faith of the gospels is established and the tradition of the Apostles is revered."

Writing about the year 189 Irenaeus—a bishop in the French city of Lyons wrote: "What if the apostles had not left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" Elsewhere Irenaeus also pointed out how important this apostolic tradition is for people to know the full truth. "It is possible then for everyone in every church who may wish to know the truth to contemplate the Traditions of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world."

This helps us answer the difficult question—where do we turn for a faithful interpretation of the Bible? Is there a body of teaching which has been faithfully passed down from the apostles that would help us to interpret the Scriptures the right way? If such a body of teaching exists then it provides a rich mine for us to turn to when we try to interpret the Scripture. If an ancient strand of teaching exists which goes back to the apostles themselves then we have not only the Scripture for a source book, but we have a rich tapestry of teaching which helps us to understand the Scripture.

As Catholics, we believe that we have just such a source for the proper interpretation of the Bible. So when we have a difficult question of Biblical interpretation we don’t just read the rest of the Bible to find the answer to the difficult question. We turn to the tradition as preserved and protected by the Church to see what the people of God believed before us. Did they face the same questions? How did they answer them? Did they face similar circumstances? How did they confront them? Did they face the same doubts, problems, heresies and attacks? How did they stand up for the truth in their day? How can it help us determine the truth today?

This of course is build on the belief that Jesus always keeps his promises. He promised that he would send the Holy Spirit upon his apostles to guide them into all truth (John 16.13). He also promised that he would be with his followers forever (John 14.16; Matt. 28.19). As a result the Church has always believed that she carries the responsibility preserving and protecting the Truth as handed down from Jesus through his apostles, in both written and oral form. And this Spirit of Pentecost is still poured out on the Church—guiding and protecting and teaching.

Some, however, may point with confidence to First John when he assured his disciples:

Therefore, they claim that have no need of a Church to teach them; they have the Holy Spirit within them. They claim that they are not making any private interpretation of Scripture, as Peter warned, but are interpreting it through the Holy Spirit. But this in not what either the apostles meant, for in both cases the apostles are using their apostolic authority to correct their Spirit-filled hearer’s sometimes erroneous interpretations.

In 2 Peter 1.16-18, Peter claimed teaching authority because he was an eyewitness of Jesus’ life and glory, and received the truth directly from Jesus. He then states in 3.2 that the truth of God which was once was delivered by the holy prophets was now given through the apostles.

What is important to see here is that Peter compares the role of the New Testament apostles to the Old Testament prophets. God directly inspired the prophets. Their preaching was considered to be a direct word from God to the people of God. The apostles, chosen and empowered by Christ, are the God-inspired teachers of the New Testament people of God. When Peter says "No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" he means that only the Prophet of God—that is, the apostle—is entitled and empowered by the Holy spirit to give the right interpretation.

Paul agrees with him. In Ephesians 3.5 he says that the mystery of God has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. And it is this same Spirit-led group of men who are the foundation of the Church. So Paul says in 2.20 that the Ephesians are members of the Church, the household of God which is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief corner stone. Jesus is the corner stone of this Church, but it is the apostles and the prophets—inspired by God’s Holy Spirit—who provide the foundation for the Church. (Cf. Rev. 21.14)

This verse fits together with Paul’s other teaching that the Church is the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’? (I Tim 3.15) So the Church—based on the teaching of the apostles—which was inspired to write the Scripture and inspired to choose which books were to be included in the Bible, is also its chosen, Spirit-filled interpreter of Scripture.

If its true that the apostles were the ones to interpret Scripture, and the apostolic Church was therefore the one to interpret Scripture, does that same apostolic authority exist today? If so, where can we find it?

We have seen that Paul explicitly handed on his teaching authority to Timothy and commanded him to hand that authority on to others who would in turn hand it on to their successors. But Timothy wasn’t the only one. Paul also sent Titus to Crete to organize the Church there. Calling Titus his son in the faith, he said, "The reason I left you behind in Crete was for you to get everything organized there and to appoint elders in every town the way I told you." And what kind of a man must this elder be? "He must have a firm grasp of the unchanging tradition so that he can be counted on to expound sound doctrine." So in the New Testament we see Paul clearly setting up the Church with his sons in the faith as his successors in the various locations.

The writings of the early Church testify that the first generation of Christians after the apostles believed their Church leaders had somehow inherited the same teaching authority that the apostles had.

So Clement, the bishop of the Roman Church around 95 AD writes: "The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ...and they went out full of confidence in the Holy spirit...and appointed their first fruits...to be bishops and deacons. Our apostles knew there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office, Therefore, they appointed these people already mentioned and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry." So Clement of Rome believed that the apostles—one of whom, John, may still have been alive—had wished for their teaching office to be continued in the Church.

Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in the year 115. In writing to the Trallian Church he equates the Church presbyters with apostles: "Therefore it is necessary (as is your practice) that you should do nothing without the bishop, but be also in subjection to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope..."

And Irenaeus who wrote around 180 AD also believed firmly that the Church had inherited the authority of the apostles to teach the truth faithfully. According to him it is because the Church leaders have inherited the apostolic authority that they can interpret Scripture properly. So he writes, "By knowledge of the truth we mean: the teaching of the Apostles; the order of the Church as established from earliest times throughout the world...preserved through the episcopal succession: for to the bishops the apostles committed the care of the Church in each place which has come down to our own time safeguarded by...the most complete exposition...the reading of the Scriptures without falsification and careful and consistent exposition of them—avoiding both rashness and blasphemy."

Remembering that Paul handed on his teaching authority to Timothy and Titus, and seeing how through history that authority has been handed down from generation to generation, Catholics believe that the dynamic and living teaching authority continues to live within the Catholic bishops who have received their ministry in direct line from the apostles, passed down over the last 2,000 years.

Because of this direct link Catholics believe the Church has a living connection with the apostolic authority, and that within the living apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church we can find a rock-solid, sure, historic and unified body of teaching which illuminates and interprets the Bible without fail.

This is an edited version of Dwight Longenecker’s apologetics series for London’s Premier Radio. Dwight was brought up in an evangelical home and graduated from Bob Jones University. He went on to study at Oxford and be ordained as an Anglican minister in England. Five years ago he and his family were received into the Catholic Church and he now works as a District Organizer for the St Barnabas Society and is also active as a Catholic writer and broadcaster.

Yet, in the Old Testament, we read time and again of the apostasy of both the priests and the kings. But, having been put in place originally by God Himself, the Levites, the Aaronic priesthood and the high priesthood itself carried-on in terms of legitimate succession. The sins of the fathers, in other words, did not militate against the "authenticity" of the various forms of the priesthood, nor did the kingship become illegitimate via the apostasy of any given king. In similar fashion, the Catholic Church, while it has weathered the storms of scandal and inconsistency of vocation more than once over its 2000-year history, continues in its line of succession and mission, having been instituted in the first place by Christ Himself. A dirty plate simply needs to be cleaned, not smashed.

Furthermore, your example falls short, on the grounds that, from all eternity, Jesus knew that He would be establishing a new covenant in His blood, and the Law, which had hitherto sufficed, would now be replaced by Grace, won for us on the Cross. A new order had to be instituted accordingly, and the old order, now rendered insufficient for anyone's salvation, not just that of the Jews, was to pass away. Besides, on a relative scale, the Jews of Christ's time were much more faithful to the God of Abraham - even taking into account their hypocrisies - than their forebears before the Exile were, so it wasn't so much on the basis of widespread infidelity that Jesus supplanted their rule.

And how, exactly, do individuals ascertain that their assumptions about the Holy Spirit's guidance are, in fact, correct? Every wind of doctrine claims inspiration from, or direct institution by, the Holy Spirit, yet they are very often mutually exclusive. Who decides which, if any, are truly led by the Holy Spirit, and which are derived from...other sources?

In any event, Catholics consider Sacred Tradition to be the work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore on a par with Scripture, yet it is rejected across the board within Protestantism as being "extra-Biblical." How is our version of the "work of the Holy Spirit" inoperative and ipso facto rejected, while far more novel doctrines, mutually exclusive as noted previously, are given a free pass as "the work of the Holy Spirit"?

But, as already discussed, their mileage may - and does! - vary considerably.

Yep, and just as the Catholic Church varies over time. There are no perfect answers, but we all must seek God with all our hearts. If you want to rely on the Church for the answers, that is your call, but that is not what I see the Bible says.

Deuteronomy 4:29
But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.

1 Chronicles 28:9
"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Better understanding of the Truth over time - what we call "development of doctrine" - is not the same as doctrinal contradiction. To mine Scripture and Tradition for greater nuance or expansion of applicability to new situations is not necessarily to create fundamental contradictions or novelties. Besides, all denominations do this, otherwise, the only Christian book sold should be the Bible itself; all other books treating to Christian themes - expansions or "development" of the Bible itself - should be considered illegitimate and unnecessary by all believers! Yet we see a vast proliferation of edifying books on Christian themes - including, especially, non-Catholic "commentaries" on the Bible! - sold everywhere, by every denomination.

The Church certainly lays claim to the right to development of doctrine. It is not, however, guilty of creating doctrine out of wholecloth. If the fundamental core of any doctrine cannot be found in the Deposit of Faith, then it cannot be "doctrine" at all.

A good example of this is the prohibition of women in the priesthood. The bottom-line, according to JP II, is that the Church "has no authority" to ordain women, because such an action is not found in the Deposit of Faith: it is not a teaching of the Apostles, nor can it even be "developed" from any teaching of theirs. Certainly, in today's climate, it would be expedient for the Church, at least in the West, to allow women to be ordained. Yet, against popular opinion, the Church steadfastly refuses to do so, on the grounds that it hasn't "authority" in the matter. Those who say or imply that the Church simply makes up stuff as it goes along would do well to consider this modern parable to the contrary!

Most protestants applaud the Catholic Church for sticking to Conservative principle on many things. The core beliefs of Catholics make them brothers in Christ. But Where most Protestants scratch their heads is this nearly religion of Mary that has been created. I am OK if you want to pray for intercession or if you want to display artwork of the virgin Mary. It is Mary is the co-Redeemer that goes to the point of conflicting with the Bible. The Catholic Church takes their Mary doctrine way too far, and even if you want to argue that the official Church position does not cross the line, the doctrine takes many Catholics to the point where they do cross the line into worshiping Mary. And that is how many non-Catholics see it.

Well, to begin with, Mary as co-redemtrix is not formally defined yet, though its roots go back to the early Church's understanding of physical and spiritual martyrdom, the Communion of Saints, and the harmonization of - among other verses - Luke 2:35 with Colossians 1:24.

Second, Mary is not, by any stretch, the primary cause of our Redemption. Christ alone is. Hers is a secondary adjunct to our redemption, and the aforementioned Luke 2:35 passage is the best simply human fulfillment of what St. Paul is talking about in Colossians 1:24. Nothing we aver about Mary is any more contradictory to the facts of Christ's redemption of the human race than what St. Paul says in Colossians. No outcry is made about his statement, likewise, none should be made about the proper understanding of Mary's role.

Third, none of this has anything to do with the worship of Mary. She is not divine. She is merely - and solely and completely! - human. To worship Mary is idolatry, pure and simple. To give her the honor, love, respect and veneration she is due is not "worship."

Indeed, on a lesser scale, the Early Church similarly honored, loved and venerated the martyrs, upon whose graves the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was said, a practice documented to the early 2nd Century (and likely extending back earlier). If the practice of veneration of the Saints and Martyrs is inherently "wrong," then take it up with the earliest Church. But, if they were wrong, then the fact that such "wrong" practices have continued from their day to ours demonstrates a wretched lack of providential care for His Church by God, and provides evidence that the whole of the Christian Faith is a sham and a fraud. Consider the implications of that a while before casting stones at the veneration of the Saints! It is the perfect logical correlary to what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14.

The problem with Protestant objections to Catholic beliefs and practices is that they are based on "novel" doctrines. Every one of them dates no further back than the 16th Century; many aren't even half that old. There is therefore, little logical point in calling various Catholic practices "unbiblical" when the Apostolic Era and its immediate aftermath are shown to harbor and nurture them again and again. The authority for them rests in their ancient lineage, and it is cheeky, at best, to object to them on the basis of understandings that can only trace their origins 1/4 of the way back to the beginning. Unless, of course, God did not exercise providential care for His Church, which He promised would both withstand the gates of Hell (Matthew 16:18) and be directly guided by God to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20) to be "the pillar and bulwark of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

But, again, if God either did not, or could not, exercise the providential care for His Church that He promised, we are - all of us, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike! - wasting our time in a false religion! I prefer to think that he meant what He said, and the Church He founded has not, can not and will not stray from the Deposit of Faith in any matter. Because He promised!

“I don’t trust that at all”

Which is why we also have written scripture and histories of various Christian “fathers of the faith”(both Catholic and Protestant) by which we can also measure our growth and to know when we are going astray. We also have our brethren in our various chuches, who when seeing that we are over-taken with a fault can come and attempt to gently lead us back to the path of Christ. We are also surrounded by a whole cloud of witnesses who have gone on to Christ before us, who are praying and rooting for us. We have the Holy Spirit so that we are never alone and totally powerless! It was all designed by Christ to be that way, it is called his church, his BRIDE!

“A dirty plate simply needs to be cleaned, not smashed”

1.Destroy THIS temple, and I will rebuild it in 3 days.

2. At that hour, there was a great earth quake and the temple veil was torn.

3. You don’t pour new wine into old wine sacks, you pour new wine into new wine sacks.

Christ did mean to smash the old order by of man made rules and regulations by showing himself to be full embodiment of the law as it was always meant to be fully lived by men. Christ came not to destroy the law but to fullfill it and to show that men could have God’s law written into hearts of flesh, incorporated right into our minds by the work of the Holy Spirit.

We have been washed by his blood and cleansed of sin so that the penalty of the law has been lifted from us. Christ was always blasting the religious leadership of his time, they were not faithful to the law, they created a system of extrapolative thought that skirted around the exact full blooded meanings of the Mosaic code so that they could be soothed in their consciences while ignoring the neediest of men. If Jesus was often calling the pharisees and scribes...generations of vipers, “full of dead men’s bones and other corruption”(the worst insults you call a Jew back then), then you cannot say that they were faithful to the sense and spirit of the law. They were small minded and vicious,human shrews, ignoring the marvelous power of miracles that Jesus displayed, fearing the loss of their earthly prestige and power and willing to put their Saviour to death for worldly trifles that have all decayed to dust.

No, Jesus came to smash the old powers of sin and death by fullfilling the law in his person. The wages of sin was death, but Jesus had no sin so he should not have had to die. Thus the perfect storm which at the end Christ was left with the keys of death and hell...the lamb that was slain and now and for ever worthy to reign!

no reason to believe that your church fathers that you cite are not the same people Paul is referring to

No reason to believe that they are either. The truth is that the early Christians left us a great deal of material, some of it heretical and some -- not. To attach a single verdict to all of them is absurd. Often an authority is accepted but partly, such as Origen or Tertullian. Still, there is a core of thinkers who formed the mind of the Church in 2-3cc and that is the same Church that also produced the Canon of scripture, so if you believe in the scripture you better believe in what they wrote at least where they express views held catholically (i.e. commonly).

there is no evidence of Apostolic succession in the scriptures

Sure there is. "Go ye teach every nation"; "Do this in memory of me", "He who hears you hears me", "I send you as my father sent me", "How can they preach unless they are sent?", "do not impose your hands lightly on any man" -- any of that sound familiar?

Your post only serves to demonstrate that you seem to have entirely missed the point of mine, which I thought was rather clear, even if you disagree with it.

Yes, as I said, Jesus' passion, death and resurrection both signaled and necessitated the breaking of the Old Covenant and the creation of a new and eternal Covenant. Indeed, He said at the Last Supper: "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20). This covenant will endure till the end of the age, for we will walk in Grace, and not in the Law, until He comes in glory.

Therefore, His new covenant, presently in force, must be maintained with care. He is always faithful, even when we are not so faithful. When our end of the covenant is broken, it needs to be repaired within its own framework. The framework was established and ordained by Him; it cannot under any scheme of mere men be changed. To that extent, it is directly analogous to a dirty plate that must have its situation remedied by cleaning it, not by smashing it. Remedying the hypocrisies and corruptions in the Church is in order whenever they occur, not the creation of ersatz "new, new covenants," "new, new, new covenants," etc., which have absolutely no divine sanction and cannot be demonstrated to have come from from God's mandate.

Even the Old Covenant, while it was in force, and until its time had come through Christ's passion and death, was always held in force by God, which is why, as I said before, the Levites, the priests and the high priests were left in their proper succession, however unworthy they might be (and they were often amazingly unfaithful, idolatrous and apostate at various times!). The "cleansing of their plate" was accomplished by The Exile, and, subsequent to it, the Jews were, despite their other hypocrisies and penchants for legalism, were nearly immune to idolatry and apostasy.

The Church is to be considered in the same way when it strays corporately through human weakness, and the result will be better, for, again, we live under Grace, not under the Law as the Jews did.

Trouble with posting articles in rebuttal of a given article is that the rebuttal article is not addressing points made in the material being rebutted.

the earliest Church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition.

Case in point. Sure they did, -- they were, after all, Catholic. But that only reinforces the fact that the Church Fathers were the men who, guided by the Holy Ghost, produced the Christian Scripture and explained the Jewish Scripture as we know it in the first place. If we do not study their collective mind, we do not properly understand the scripture, --exactly what the Catechism teaches.

Catholic apologists have attacked sola Scriptura with a vengeance. If they can topple this one doctrine, all the Reformers' other points fall with it.

Why, other Protestant doctrines fall independently, for example, the sola fide doctrine is refuted by the Holy Scripture, even in its truncated Protestant version, alone, -- it is plain controverted in Romans 2 and James 2. But it is correct that the Sola Scriptura superstition is how most Protestant arguments against Catholicism are constructed, often self-defeatingly.

it is possible to debunk sola Scriptura by using Scripture alone!

[...]

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Exactly, and this is why Sola Scriptura is unscriptural: the knowledge that "everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture" is surely necessary to avoid the alleged error of Catholic reliance on the patristic Holy Tradition and magisterial teaching. Yet, that assertion is not in the scripture: to the contrary, both scripture and tradition are praised at least in some measure in the scripture. This is another case where the rebuttal article does not address a point already made in the main article.

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency—and nowhere more clearly that 2 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: "The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is "God-breathed" (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God "for every good work." So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach sola Scriptura is simply wrong.

The reader will notice how the single thought contained in "profitable ... that man of God may be perfect" is mangled into two seemingly unrelated segments by the author's paraphrase. If St. Paul wanted 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to say that the scripture is sufficient, I am sure he did not lack the eloquence to say so. Instead, he said that the scripture known to Timothy since infancy (in other words, the Septuagint) is profitable for his priestly formation, and also is inspired by God. The author of the rebuttal article is apparently unaware of the fact that the Septuagint in its entirety is the Catholic Old Testament Canon and is taught in seminaries, exactly as 2 Timothy 3:15-17 teaches.

I am OK if you want to pray for intercession or if you want to display artwork of the virgin Mary. It is Mary is the co-Redeemer that goes to the point of conflicting with the Bible.

You know, I disagree that co-Redeemer is unbiblical, -- more on that in a moment -- but first, what you say here is remarkable because it is a reasonable position. When Catholicism is denied because of veneration of saints or the Holy Images (that is not "artwork", tsk tsk), that is plain absurd, but it is fair to point out that devotion to Mary seems out of proportion at times. Thank you for the reasoned tone of your post.

The dogmatic position of the Church is that Mary is a central figure of the Incarnation and has a mystical connection with the Catholic Church. The former is, of course, because of her uniquely intimate and uniquely miraculous involvement in the Incarnation. The latter is based on her adopting the "disciple Jesus loved" at the foot of the Cross, as well as, of course on her mystical ability to "magnify the Lord" so that through her maternal suffering "out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed".

Co-redeemer would be heretical is this relationship between Christ and the Church, -- based, in truth, on Mary's admonition to us "do what He tells you", -- is allowed to become a relationship of equals. I am not aware of anyone's Marian devotion to take on that tilt, but in theory it is a danger of the co-redeemer title. If it is ever recognized officially, solid catechism on that will be required.

If "co-Redeemer" is understood, correctly, as Mary in her scripturally detailed role in the Economy of Redemption, then, of course, it is inobjectionable. It also has a spiritual benefit to us pedagogically, as it is useful to meditate on the Gospel through the eye of Mary, -- a human being like us, but most intimately involved in the mystery of our salvation. This is the usefulness of the Rosary prayer to all Christians.

Still, there is a core of thinkers who formed the mind of the Church in 2-3cc and that is the same Church that also produced the Canon of scripture, so if you believe in the scripture you better believe in what they wrote at least where they express views held catholically (i.e. commonly).

No, we need not believe them- at least not with the force of the Holy Scriptures themselves. We certainly take their words under advisement. We can also treat them with respect, even as we may respect Luther and Calvin without necessarily adhering to every concept that comes from their mouths.

The point of contention, I believe, comes partly from this: That the Roman Catholics insist on reverence toward their traditions that we do not impart even to our own traditions.

The Protestant mind uses such works for guidance, surely, but discernment is left to the beholder, and is not ultimately left in the hands of the church- In the great bazaar of Protestantism, there is always another church to flee to; one that holds to views which more closely mirror one's own interpretations.

While this does indeed defeat the homogeneity the RCC desires- namely one in which the RCC is the only, and monolithic church, it also neatly prevents heresy from any ability to triumph totally, it having to survive in a multitude of environments rather than usurping power from a singular leadership.

I would submit that such diversity could be a Divine construct.

The whole passage in which 1 Timothy 3:15 is found is this (NIV):

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Paul is saying that what he is writing are the instructions the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, should follow in order for Christians to know how to conduct themselves in the church!

In other words - Paul is CLEARLY saying that HIS WRITING (Written, Holy Word of God) is what should be obeyed - in the church....which is (as it obeys The Written Word such as Paul is providing) the pillar of the truth.

This passage very clearly gives support to “Sola Scriptura” not to the belief that the CHURCH is what is to be obeyed....but the written instructions are to be obeyed...again giving the authoritative endorsement of this letter as part of the authentic Word of the Living God!

God breathed, Paul penned.

Sola Scriptura! Praise His Holy Name Forever!

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.