Skip to comments.According to Scripture (Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?)
Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
"If a teaching isnt explicit in the Bible, then we dont accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
Most Protestants find it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessarya rule of faithbut in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.
The Protestant appeal to the sole authority of Scripture to defend sola scriptura is a textbook example of circular reasoning, and it betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself: It is contrary to reason. One cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, the Quran, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and other books all claim inspiration, but this does not make them inspired.
Closely related to this is the question of the canon. After all, if the Bible is the sole rule of faith, we first have to know which books are included in the Bible. Many books were believed to be inspired and, therefore, canonical in the early Church. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff? The Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura to answer the question of the canon. It simply cannot be done.
I recall a conversation with a Protestant friend about this. He said, "The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God, as Jesus said in John 16:13." I thought that that answer was more Catholic than Protestant. John 16:13 does tells us that the Spirit will lead the apostles, and by extension, the Church, into truth. But it has nothing to say about sola scriptura or the nature or number of books in the canon.
The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon. Historically, the Church used sacred Tradition outside of Scripture as its criterion for the canon. The early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue, needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree to settle the question. Those are the historical facts.
To put my friends argument into perspective, imagine a Catholic making a similar claim to demonstrate that Mary is the Mother of God. "We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth." Would the Protestant respond with a hearty amen? No. He would be more likely to say, "Show me where it says in the Bible that Mary is the Mother of God!" The same question, of course, applies to Protestants concerning the canon: "Show me where the canon of Scripture is in the Bible!"
Will the Circle Be Unbroken?
The issues of the inspiration and canon of Scripture are the Achilles heel of any intellectual defense of sola scriptura. So weak are the biblical attempts at an answer that often the Protestant response just turns the argument against the Catholic. "How do you know Scripture is inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular. You say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scripture says so, then you say that Scripture is inspired and infallible because the Church says so!"
Not only is this not an answer, but it also misrepresents the Catholic position. Catholics do not claim the Church is infallible because Scripture says so. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. The Church was established and functioning as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written.
It is true that we know Scripture to be inspired and canonical only because the Church has told us so. That is historical fact. Catholics reason to inspiration of Scripture through demonstrating first its historical reliability and the truth about Christ and the Church. Then we can reasonably rely upon the testimony of the Church to tell us the text is inspired. This is not circular reasoning. The New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history, but one cannot deduce from this that it is inspired.
The testimony of the New Testament is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christian and non-Christian writers. We have the first-century testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Church Fatherssome of whom were contemporaries of the apostlesand highly reliable non-Christian writers such as Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and others, all testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event in various ways. It is on the basis of the historical evidence that we can say it is a historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:6). Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the truth of the Resurrection of Christ (Luke 1:1-4; John 21:18-19; 24-25; Acts 1:1-11).
The historical record also tells us that Jesus Christ established a Churchnot a bookto be the foundation of the Christian faith (Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ said of his Church, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
The many books that comprise the Bible never tell us that they are inspired, nor do they answer many other essential questions about their canonicity. Who can or cannot be the human authors of the texts? Who wrote them in the first place? But Scripture does tell usremarkably clearlythat Jesus established a kingdom on earth, the Church, with a hierarchy and the authority to speak for him (Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20). If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.
The bottom line is that the truth of the Catholic Church is rooted in history. Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place. His Church gave us the New Testament with the authority of Christ. Reason rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle.
There are four problems with the defense of sola scriptura using 2 Timothy 3:16. First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. The two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.
Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible teaches justification by faith, and we Catholics believe it, but we do not believe in justification by faith alone, as Protestants do. Among other reasons, the Bible says that we are "justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24). There is no sola in 2 Timothy 3:16 either. The passage never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith.
James 1:4 illustrates the problem:
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to 2 Timothy 3:16, then we would have to say that all we need is patience (steadfastness) to be perfected. We dont need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, or anything else.
Of course, any Christian knows this would be absurd. But Jamess emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than Pauls emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola in either text. Sola patientia would be just as wrong as sola scriptura.
Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture. It is silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but it is remarkably clear in teaching that oral Tradition is just as much the word of God as Scripture is. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, Paul said:
And we also thank God . . . that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13)
According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:
So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 is specifically addressed to members of the hierarchy. It is a pastoral epistle, written to a young bishop Paul had ordained. R. J. Foster points out that the phrase "man of God" refers to ministers, not to the average layperson (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1149). This title was used in the Old Testament to describe those consecrated to the service of God (Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 2:27; 1 Kgs. 12:22). Not only does the text not say Scripture sola, but Pauls exhortation for Timothy to study the word of God is in the context of an exhortation to "preach the word" as a minister of Christ. To use this text to claim that sola scriptura is being taught to the average layperson isto borrow a phrase from Paulgoing far "beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).
The silence of Scripture on sola scriptura is deafening. But when it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition and to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the text is clear:
If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17)
According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline. It is telling that since the Reformation of almost 500 years agoa Reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principlethere are now over 33,000 Protestant denominations. In John 10:16, Jesus prophesied there would be "one flock, one shepherd." Reliance on sola scriptura has not been effective in establishing doctrine or authority.
Itz a ‘catch 22’ , when you adhere to non-scriptural ‘’sola scriptura’’, you can READ INTO scripture whatever you need, to ‘support’ SS......
Goes the other way too, when things are chosen by human consensus and committee.
A group of Christians under the holy spirit would determine the same writings are scripture. Scripture is as self evident as a child knowing its mother.
“”If a teaching isnt explicit in the Bible, then we dont accept it as doctrine!” That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant”
Well, no wonder he’s not a Protestant then. Since this is nothing more than a straw man and is not what Christians believe. He fell for his own straw man and then became a Catholic, I suppose. The Trinity is not “explicitly” mentioned in the Bible. There is no phrase in there that says “God is a Trinity.” It is a truth logically deduced from the entirety of the scripture, and we would justly refer to anyone who opposes the Trinity as being a heretic.
On the other hand, Roman Catholic doctrine most of the time cannot be logically deduced from the scripture at all. It stands simply upon the figment of an alleged Roman Catholic authority backed up through assertion instead of any actual evidence. Or it is backed up by myths and legends. They simply say, when they cannot defend their religion, that they have the right to make what they say the truth despite a lack of evidence. Outside of Catholics and deluded Protestants like this guy formerly was, who is going to find that line of argument persuasive?
“It says that Scripture is inspired and necessarya rule of faithbut in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.”
This is no better than the last straw man. Read the entire sentence, “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” If the scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work,” is there some level beyond “completeness” that only Romish dogma can contain?
But what IS so special about Roman Catholic dogma anyway? If I were to become a Catholic, I would have to give up any sense of security for heaven. I would have to worry about how long I’ll burn in purgatory, even if I don’t go to hell, and I’ll have to add Roman works and penance in order to make up for my sins (because Christ’s work on the cross for me ISN’T complete), and remind my family to pray for me so that the rest of my sins are burned away in purgatory quickly.
So what’s so hot about Romish doctrine that you guys want me to convert so badly?
‘Well, only we have the right to interpret scripture and blah blah blah.”
“It is true that we know Scripture to be inspired and canonical only because the Church has told us so.”
So how come your church believes the apocrypha are inspired scripture even though, historically, it did not?
Pope Gregory, quoting Maccabees:
Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed. Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.
Notice how he mentions that they are put forward not for the confirmation of the faith, but for edification of the faithful. This same idea is repeated by many authors:
Athanasius on the apocrypha:
But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read. (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)
Rufinus on the Apocrypha:
They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. (Rufinus of Aquileia, Exposition of the Creed)
Cardinal Cajetan calls them not canonical for the confirmation of the faith, but canonical only in a certain sense for the edification of the faithful.
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage. (Cardinal Cajetan, Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, cited by William Whitaker in A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
Official prefaces to Latin translations of the scripture making the same distinction:
At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation. ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)
Ill also add one final point, that is, that the apocrypha usually expose themselves as not being inspired scripture. Judith, for example, says that Nebuchadnezzer is King of the Assyrians, which is wrong, amongst many other historical and geographical errors. Tobit features an Angel of the Lord teaching witchcraft. Maccabees apologizes for possibly containing errors, since he wrote it to the best of his ability. So does Sirach.
So why does your church DENY these things, and even what the apocrypha themselves say?
“This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.”
The Apostles believed themselves to be writing scripture. Therefore, Timothy would have read that epistle AS scripture. As we can see here from Peter’s assertion:
2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
WOW! What part of believing God alone before 'anyone else' even before opening up HIS WORD is not part of your belief and who taught you that?
Study the lives of those in it - that BELIEVED God by faith and 'not the voice of another' and start with Abraham and see the results of each. Warning it is not for wimps as it has nothing to do with our own 'natural' understanding of things!
Following GOD ALONE takes faith everyday. Following man doesn't take faith - that's more of giving into fear.
JESUS IS THE WORD. Do you want to be a follower of Jesus alone or 'man'?
A pile of rocks lying on the ground, raised to life as believers, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance would arrive at pretty much the same conclusions as a crowd of serious Christians.
The doctrine of sola scriptura came about as a result of the “Catholic Church” teaching and doing things that were against the clear teaching of scripture.
My opinion is that Americans of all Christian belief ought to set aside their differences for now, since the Enemy is assaulting our religious freedoms with a political vengeance not seen since the pogroms against Chinese Christians by Mao in the 1960s. Well, that may be an exaggeration...for now.
But in the interest of discussion, I’ll offer an alternative explanation for anyone who really is asking the question:
Seeing as the doctrine of papal infallibility did not become official Roman Catholic teaching until sometime around 1870, I find it a bit interesting for hard core followers of that branch of the body of Christ sometimes want to dismiss those of us who adhere to Reformation and post-Reformation beliefs.
Whether ‘tis nobler to follow the Word of God or to suffer the errors and mistakes of a manmade institution ran by fallible men. Hmmm... I’ll take the Word of God and move on from this strawman of a argument.
10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystrawhat persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
Paul points out that Timothy KNOWS Paul's life experience, faith, etc. He doesn't say Timothy should follow him as an Apostle. Could have. Doesn't. Could have said to follow tradition. Doesn't.13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Paul presents the solution to avoiding evil men and impostors who deceive is to continue in the Holy Scriptures. He does not say the Church. He says the Holy Scriptures can keep you from being deceived.
He also points out that "the Holy Scriptures can make someone wise for salvation through faith" - not the Church. The Holy Scriptures.16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And what does Paul say All Scripture given by inspiration of God is for:
Doctrine - teaching what is true (Not the Church. Not tradition. Scripture.)This all from an Apostle who had the perfect opportunity to tell a church leader under his discipleship all about using both tradition and the church, but tells him Holy Scripture is the source.
Reproof - the rebuke of individuals who stray (Not the Church. Not tradition. Scripture.)
Correction - the process of steering teaching correctly (Not the Church. Not tradition. Scripture.)
Instruction in righteousness - Scripture alone. Not rituals, rote prayers, cultic candles & vestments (Not the Church. Not tradition. Scripture.)
The the man of God may be complete - all that is needed (Not the Church. Not tradition. Scripture.)
Thoroughly equipped for every good work - (Not the Church. Not tradition. Scripture.)
Sola Scriptura is a LIE! The most important page in the bible is NOT scripture - it is the table of contents, which comes to Protestants everywhere thanks to the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Long ago, conservativegranmma posted on this topic and I thought it was excellent in trying to prevent both sides from rehashing historic misunderstandings. I will quote it here and ping her also.
——————conservativegranmma’s original post quoted————————
Sola Scriptura is a principle which basically states that all teachings, dogmas, and beliefs that come from any authority other than the Holy Scriptures are not essential doctrines of the faith that need to be believed in order to be saved. Popes, councils, creeds, past Christian writers (other than those of the Scriptures), traditions, and other authorities are relegated to a secondary status. These things are not negated or thrown away, but rather, they are to be tested by the highest and only infallible rule of faith, the Scriptures.
“To summarize sola scriptura:
1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
2. No other revelation is needed for the Church.
3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.
-James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), p.62.
To summarize, sola scriptura is not a
1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge;
2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge;
3. denial of the Churchs authority to teach Gods truth;
4. denial that Gods Word has, at times, been spoken;
5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition;
6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church.
-James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), p.59.
The basis of sola Scriptura is this:
1. Revelation from God has ceased, and there are no other infallible authorities in existence. Thus, the main basis for sola Scriptura is that it is true by default. Traditions contradict each other and have no way of being verifiably traced back to the Apostles. Councils contradict each other and the Scriptures, and historically, they were never viewed as infallible until the Middle Ages. Popes taught blatant heresy and contradict each other, and like councils, the idea of infallible popes did not arise until the Middle Ages. Thus, the only rule of faith that is called God-breathed and can be verifiably traced back to inspired prophets and apostles is Scripture.
2. In every place in Scripture, traditions that claimed Divine origin were always tested by the Scriptures. This is directly related to the issue of the Sacred Tradition that is held to in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other Christian groups. These groups view Tradition to be handed down orally from the Apostles to the priests. These groups view their Sacred Tradition as equal to the Scriptures and the vehicle for interpreting Scripture. Thus, in the view of these groups, Tradition can never be judged by Scripture because it is the interpreter of Scripture. However, Jesus saw things differently. A great example of this was when Jesus dealt with the errors of the Pharisees:
Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. And He answered and said to them, Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER, and, HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH. But you say, Whoever says to his father or mother, Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God, he is not to honor his father or his mother. And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN. Matthew 15:1-9
The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews at that time did not eat unless they carefully washed their hands, thus observing the traditions of their elders; and when they came from the market place, they did not eat unless they cleansed themselves; among 1,001 bazillion other things that had been added to the Old Testament). So the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him,
Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands? And He said to them, Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN. Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. He was also saying to them, You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER; and, HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH; but you say, If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God), you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that. Mark 7:1-13
In these two parallel passages, the Lord Jesus was accused of not following the Traditions of the Elders. These traditions were believed by the Pharisees to be handed down orally from Moses to the Levitical priests, and they were placed on an equal footing with Scripture. So what was Jesus response? Did he view this tradition as authoritative and an explanation of how Scripture is to be interpreted? The answer from the Lord was in the negative! Instead of using tradition (that claimed Divine origin) as a vehicle for interpreting Scripture, He judged whether traditions were valid or not on the basis of Scripture, and He expected men to know what the Scriptures taught. Thus, He not only held the Scriptures to be the highest authority, but he also believed that what was contained in them was clearly taught.
The issue isn’t so much Sola Scriptura as it is AUTHORITY.
Great analysis! Its amazing how hard they try to discount scripture to facilitate the deception of the RCC isnt it? Scripture must be put in second place or their entire system collapses.
On the other hand, there are a number of scriptures warning us to not follow the traditions of men.
Jesus, of course. People can talk all they want, about different doctrines about a lot of different subjects, but all of it pales in comparison to that ONE DOCTRINE with infinite, eternal implications. And that is, what does a man have to do to go to Heaven forever? There is NOTHING in creation, more important than that one question. God made it so plain, even a 5 year old can understand it.
Wow, aren't you edumucated? making statements like that. If you'd just kept quiet we wouldn't have formed an opinion about you like we did. Eternal life is in the . . . table of contents. Who knew?
Jesus vowed to build His church on the foundational truth confessed by a man named Peter, a fallible man as are we all, yet susceptible to inspiration by the truths he had learned from the Master. To wit: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Through years of study, the affirmative Words that The God has written regarding His Word are as follows:
How The God reveres His Word:
- Psa_138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
- Pro 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
- Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
- Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
- Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
- Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
- Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
- Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
- Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed
- 2Co 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Doing the work of The God:
- Joh 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
- Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Doing the work of The God deceitfully:
- Jer 48:10 Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.
The theory that the author presents is one that relies on fallible counsel and rule of fallible men over, as well as above, the Word of The Almighty and Infallible God and His Christ, as communicated through the graphe of His inspired, infallible, plenary, verbal, preserved, and alone authoritative Word; and this author's rant against the Holy Scriptures is another gospel of a different kind. It is a doctrine that denies that The Word of The God is the entire and completely finished authority for both belief and practice of His children and His churches.
I believe that the teaching of this article is a Lie, and that the author of it it a damnable liar in his motivation; and that whatever supports him in this is also false.
Because of the magnitude of its offense toward the believing children of God, it is due this retort and rebuke.
So zot me.
Thank you for this.
wow, this is too easy to show where people who actually rear Scripture are supposed to be blessed by Scripture only
Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
It is foolishness to think that anything other than Scripture can be treated with any equal reverence in any way as Scripture, and it is blasphemy to say that the writings of men equal Scripture
Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that [was] before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.
Neh 8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
Neh 8:3 And he read therein before the street that [was] before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people [were attentive] unto the book of the law.
Neh 8:4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, [and] Meshullam.
Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
Neh 8:6 And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with [their] faces to the ground.
Neh 8:7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people [stood] in their place.
Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused [them] to understand the reading.
Neh 8:9 And Nehemiah, which [is] the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day [is] holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law.
Neh 8:10 Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for [this] day [is] holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength.
Neh 8:11 So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day [is] holy; neither be ye grieved.
Neh 8:12 And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.
Neh 8:13 And on the second day were gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to understand the words of the law.
Neh 8:14 And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:
Neh 8:15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as [it is] written.
Neh 8:16 So the people went forth, and brought [them], and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim.
Neh 8:17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.
Neh 8:18 Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day [was] a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.
Like we should trust man over God?
If anyone wants to they can have at it and count me out.
Hey, GC. Over here. Another one for your homepage.
I understand your sentiment, but it just doesn’t work. I’ll happily ally myself with Protestants against all sorts of bad things. The problem is Protestantism is a bad thing too - just not as bad as many other things.
Is it? In 325 the early Church had to answer what was perhaps its greatest controversy ever: the question of the Divinity of Christ. 2000 years later, one would think that a very clear answer came from Scripture of course Christ was divine, of course the Trinity was a reality, of course Jesus was the second person of the Trinity. But this was a major battle in the Church. A priest named Arius and many of Eastern bishops believed that Jesus was not equal with God, and they had numerous Scripture passages and logical arguments that seem to strongly support that notion. Jesus Himself said many things that seemed to make it clear that he was lesser than the Father: the Father knew things that he did not, He did the will of the Father, Jesus prayed to the Father (was he talking to Himself?), etc. Also, logic seems to fight against the Trinitarian view: the eternal God of the universe was born as a baby, grew in knowledge, worked, obeyed his parents, went to the bathroom, got hungry and tired and so forth?
Christian positions (like the Trinitarian view) were not self-evident. In other words, while a strong argument for the Divinity of Christ could be made from Scripture. One could not pretend that it was the only possible interpretation. Indeed, Arius was not a monster; he was a generally well-liked priest that was genuinely concerned that the Church not misconstrue Jesus and His work. (The Jehovahs Witnesses say the same thing today using Scripture). The question is simply one of anchor passages passages by which other passages are to be interpreted. We would point to John 1 (The Word was God) as clear evidence of the Divinity of Christ, but others would say that that is a heavily spiritual passage, and, given the clear indications from other verses that seem to show that Jesus is lesser than God, perhaps John 1 should be understood as meaning that The Word this man who was born as a person was one with God in some way. It all depends on which verses are considered anchors. If John 1 is an anchor passage (and I have interpreted it correctly), then the Jesus as lesser being passages should be interpreted as consistent with the anchored view that Jesus is God (i.e., is equal with the Father). But the reverse is also true perhaps the Jesus as lesser being passages are the anchors. This raises the question: who gets to authoritatively decide which passages are the anchor passages, and what those passages mean in the first place?
Many, many gospels, books and letters were written by many people over the first few centuries. And the various churches had varying copies and disagreements about which should be considered inspired. There was some general agreement as to some of the books and letters. However, some churches considered certain books and letters inspired that were later considered not to be, by the Church. And some churches rejected certain books and letters later considered to be inspired by the Church. Who gets to define which are the essential beliefs? How did we got the NT? Who decided which books should be in the Canon of Scripture ... and ... by what authority did they make that determination?
Exactly! Where evil was against God's Word from the beginning! He is STILL deceiving - amazing how some still submit to 'the crafty one'.
If anyone wants to they can have at it and count me out.
And I'm out with you and so is the rest of The Body of Christ!
God's WORD ALONE is the FINAL authority for God's own.
What Church boasts not only here but all over the world? "We brought you the Bible." Really? I thought it was the Word of God. His Word not Catholics word. Then we hear talk of authority (Cartman complex?) and tradition and councils, etc . . . Did God not use Balaams donkey for His purpose? Boasting is unseemly.
"If a teaching isnt explicit in the Bible, then we dont accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura,
And right there I know he won't have much useful to say. This is a caricature. He's playing for his crowd. This isn't what we hold.
This is more typical:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. etc. etc.
“Is it? In 325 the early Church had to answer what was perhaps its greatest controversy ever: the question of the Divinity of Christ. 2000 years later, one would think that a very clear answer came from Scripture “
This actually reveals your ignorance of the scripture, since Christ’s divinity is quite clear there.
Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Joh_1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
“A priest named Arius and many of Eastern bishops believed that Jesus was not equal with God, and they had numerous Scripture passages and logical arguments that seem to strongly support that notion.”
And Augustine didn’t?
“They who have said that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God, or not very God, or not with the Father the One and only God, or not truly immortal because changeable, are proved wrong by the most plain and unanimous voice of divine testimonies; as, for instance, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. For it is plain that we are to take the Word of God to be the only Son of God, of whom it is afterwards said, And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, on account of that birth of His incarnation, which was wrought in time of the Virgin. But herein is declared, not only that He is God, but also that He is of the same substance with the Father; because, after saying, And the Word was God, it is said also, The same was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made. Not simply all things; but only all things that were made, that is; the whole creature. From which it appears clearly, that He Himself was not made, by whom all things were made. And if He was not made, then He is not a creature; but if He is not a creature, then He is of the same substance with the Father. For all substance that is not God is creature; and all that is not creature is God. And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, then He is a substance that was made: and if He is a substance that was made, then all things were not made by Him; but all things were made by Him, therefore He is of one and the same substance with the Father. And so He is not only God, but also very God. And the same John most expressly affirms this in his epistle: For we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (Augustine, On the Holy Trinity)
What stupid attack is this against logic and scripture? Do you think that there is some substance to the false logic of the Arians? Having debated many of these infidels myself, their primary method is to ignore the scripture altogether that disproves them. How is that Sola Scriptura?
The nickname Πετρος (=Peter) which Jesus gave to Simon bar Jonah was masculine, thus fitting a man figuratively, and literally meant a small fragment of stone. Thus, this was a contrast in which Simon's reliability was very small in comparison to the supreme staunchness that truth. In fact, in the same passage Simon immefdiately demonstrated his own lack of wisdom, demonstrating that he was easily influenced by Satan.
Scripture was generally accepted by that date.
It's not about people nor talk but about Jesus and what It Is Written.
what does a man have to do to go to Heaven forever?
Believe on Jesus and Who sent Him. JESUS IS THE WORD/God's Word.
Believing in another word/doctrine/teaching discounts it all. It's ONLY JESUS! You can't serve two masters!
Adam/Eve learned that too late! EVERYONE should learn from their mistake, they had no idea they could be deceived. And we have deception every since - in all forms and disguised to 'look holy', non threatening. And that is the biggest lie!
There is NOTHING in creation, more important than that one question
And one answers it by BELIEVING HIS WORD ONLY and OBEYING IT by renewing our mind by IT. God KNOWS the heart. We can fool ourselves but can't fool the - EVER KNOWING ALL SEEING GOD!
'Man fools others and man fools himself' - there is ONLY ONE Reliable ONE and that is Jesus for HE ALONE is The Way, The Truth, The LIFE/eternal.
Exactly. All things work to the Will of God . . . eventually.
Not so. He wants ALL to be saved and they won’t. We are responsible for what and who we believe.
God wants ALL but not all wants God. They found ‘a better way’ that they ‘can understand’ - with their natural mind and ‘man’ fits that bill for them. When Jesus walked the earth - it was the same. Some argued with HIS WAYS and some just turned from Him. Haven’t you witnessed the same here?
It would be heaven here if ALL followed JESUS ALONE and no reason to return to bring His Own where He is also.
They hadnt read scripture?
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace
and the word was with God and the word was God.
and the word became flesh
How many more should I list? Maybe they were to concentrated on developing their traditions of man? People who put their faith in the RCC really need to "come out of her".
Without doubt. The audacity of the RCC and those who follow its teachings amazes me.
Bless his heart, it must be exhausting going through this over and over.
“Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture.”
And then quotes,
“And we also thank God . . . that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13)”
But “oral Tradition” is large body of traditions from many sources including the false gospels.
What Paul spoke was not the word of men as so many traditions are but truly the inspired “word of God” and as such would not conflict with that inspired, written “word of God”.
The author goes on to say,
“According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:”
It was the traditions (small ‘t’) taught to the disciples by the apostles both orally and written that was the “word of God” so that any oral tradition must by definition agree with that written word .
“So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
But Paul did not urge anyone to accept some body of “oral Tradition” existing at the time but the traditions received from him, Paul, and the apostles, which unless Paul was self contradictory, would agree with what he wrote to the Thessalonians.
What do Paul's letters to the Thessalonians lack that can be found in some group of “oral Traditions”? What do his letters need added to them by this body of “oral Tradition”?
Please read the above passage ... again. The Bible, as you know it, did not exist in 325 AD. There were many, many gospels, documents and letters. Which ones were authoritative? None of them had yet been compiled into a book.
Oral Tradition is how the gospels and letters were communicated before they were ever compiled into a book. See post #29.
I have repeatedly asked what oral traditions it was that Paul taught that are not recorded in Scripture, how we know what they are how we can be sure they have been faithfully handed down, and I have yet to receive an answer.
There is obviously no source that tells us those things as no one has yet provided a link to the documentation of them.
So are you saying that Isaiah wasnt part of what was referred to as it is written? You actually believe that none of the writings of the apostles were considered authoritative? Seriously?