Protestants and Sola Scriptura

Catholic Net ^ | George Sim Johnston

[NYer]

Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?

It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?

If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.

Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.

Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.

But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.

Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.

The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."

Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Bsuppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."

St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."

[Ann Archy]

We do NOT worship Mary....you are either IGNORANT of that fact or anti-Catholic.

[Alex Murphy]

But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had.

Goota love those Catholic make-it-up-as-we-go-along apologetics!

[bannie]

I thought that Catholics prayed to Mary.

[Wings-n-Wind]

The tone of this article is more than a little abrasive--
Not leaving much room for civil exchange or discussion--

Furthermore the author obviously does NOT understand the Biblical foundations of evangelical soteriology/ecclesiology...

IMHO...
The large measure of good will generated durung the recent US visit by the leader of the RCC is easily dispersed by shallow articles such as these...

Again, just my humble...
I'm done...

Pass the popcorn!

[horse_doc]

Of course, the kicker is, that if you follow this article to its logical conclusion, then Catholics should look to the Greek Orthodox Church for guidance.

It IS the older organization, after all. Much closer to where the Gospels were actually written, etc.

I love you guys, but the Reformation happened, because the Catholic Church was a mess. That, and the fact that God wanted it to. Deal with it.

[Carl from Marietta]

You're right.

And to our polytheistic Church of Rome friend; the Bible makes it's own claim to inerrency many many times, and I didn't need some pope or a handy collection of saints, (a saint for every ailment), to hand hold me or tell me what to believe. Your dogma is so transparent. And your doctrine of Maryology and praying to this host of saints is implicitly breaking the first two commandments, which makes the teaching of your popes antithetical to Christ's. Therefore by definition they are false prophets and are apostate, no matter how well intentioned they are or how much charisma they have personally.

[proudtobeanamerican1]

Okay, I’m IGNORANT. What do you do to Mary and the other Saints? Why do you have to confess to a leader in your church and not directly to God?

[TheDon]

Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?

Of course, one could ask the Catholic the same question, and receive the same answer. :-)

[TheDon]

Acts 1
15 ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

One hopes a person who claims to believe in the Bible at least read what it says! :-)

[thefrankbaum]

Point taken - I shouldn’t mince words. :-P But, the original question I was responding to - if that isn’t succession, WHAT is it?

[SoothingDave]

the Bible makes it's own claim to inerrency many many times

How do you know which books belong to this thing you call "the Bible"?

[old-ager]

Show me a tradition that adds to Scripture without contradicting it.

[zerosix]

Paul was no less an Apostle than Peter, in fact had it not been for Paul, the sect known as followers of "the Way" would have remained in a handful of Jewish believers. These people might all have died in Jerusalem when it was sacked in 70 A.D., or fled southward to Massada, where they committed suicide rather than be killed and enslaved by Rome.

No my saivation is found in Jesus Christ alone and I need pray for forgiveness through no human nor ask any human for "absolution," bow to no Pope nor light candles to no dead humans referred to as "saints" by the church at Rome.

All believers, are Christians and are referred to as "saints" by divine inspiration and need no confirmation from anyone other than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

All such idol worship and human worship is strictly forbidden and referred to as an aboomination by God.

He alone is my Holy Father.

[Huber]

I love you guys, but the Reformation happened, because the Catholic Church was a mess. That, and the fact that God wanted it to. Deal with it.

So does is say that in the bible or is that simply an opinion? Are we better off now that the reformation occurred? Did we solve the corruption of indulgences or are we still building worship palaces on the credit card donations sent to televangelists?

Are Joel Osteen, Jimmy Swaggart, John Shelby Spong, Benny Hinn, Katherine Jefferts Schori, and many others an improvement over some of the Roman Catholic clergy and hierarchy of the 15th century? Is the protestant church (or are the protestant churches) less of a mess than the Catholic church was?

Are more or fewer people in the west (on a percentage basis) among the faithful? Do more or fewer literate people read the bible? Is the Christian faith a greater or a lesser influence on our culture?

Also, after 500 years, why do protestants still define themselves in terms of the Catholic church (or is there something else that they are protesting)?

[cdcdawg]

what you say may or may not be true, but the present post is anything but the epitome of logic. It pretty much hits for the cycle in fallacies, which is a hallmark of modern Catholic apologetics. The Staw-man is the star player.

Personally, I think evangelicals of the Arminian/Weslyan tradition (in which Tradition is respected, though not equal to Scripture) are mostly right, though they generally don't know why they are right. That makes them inept at defending their positions. How Republican of them.

[Mad Dawg]

my salvation rests solely on Jesus Christ no matter what any human may say.

Catholic of the Latin Rite (aka Roman Catholic), I agree. As does the Pope.

[evangmlw]

These “tele-evangelist’s” that you speak of are only a blimp on the radar. They will one day answer to God for their deception! There are thousands of God-fearing protestant pastors in churches across this land who make huge sacrifices to do what they do. There are also thousands of others throughout the world. There are missionaries who put their lives on the line daily and some who die for their faith. Millions will spend eternity in heaven because of the protestant reformation. On the other hand, millions of Catholics who thought they were saved by the church instead of faith in Christ will split hell wide-open. Their blood will also be on the hands of popes, bishops, and priest who led the masses astray.

[LiteKeeper]

You Roman Catholics are so full of yourselves. You have encrusted the Gospel, and the Word of God, with your traditions.

There will be a Day of Reckoning!

[cdcdawg]

“Are more or fewer people in the west (on a percentage basis) among the faithful? Do more or fewer literate people read the bible? Is the Christian faith a greater or a lesser influence on our culture?”

I guess it depends on whether “faithful” means going through the motions of saying/listening to some stuff in a foreign language and eating a wafer(and having no clue what they mean), or actually receiving Christ. Wars have been fought over that over issue, so don’t presume to gloss over it on a message board. You give a list of questionable teachers from modern Protestantism, ignoring the recent and past dirty laundry of Roman Catholocism.

I don’t know your level of Latin scholarship, but I took five years, and I literally thank God for the King James Version.

Most Protestants don’t define themselves in terms of the Catholic church. Most don’t even think about it, which is a shame.

You might know less about Protestant theology than many Southern Baptists know about the Catholic church. It’s hard to tell.

[Mad Dawg]

clearly Peter in those early days wasn’t the sole authority.

The lady we call St. Catherine of Siena argued with the Pope and won.

The Pope is not the sole authority and people argue with him to this day. (There's a difference between "sole" and "final".) As happens, when the argument lasts long enough, when the Pope decides that he has won or lost, if other reasons justify it, he will "define" the conclusion. THEN it's "final". Up until then, it's "in play".

I am not trying to persuade you of any doctrine here. I am trying to help you confine your arguments to what the Church actually teaches rather than something she doesn't teach.