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.
Unreasonable
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.
Unbiblical
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).
Unworkable
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.
But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
But JESUS said, when asked, "What MUST we do..."
1 Corinthians 4:18
Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you.
There is no flesh in heaven nor blood! GOD is SPIRIT!
So the vatican's 'Eucharist' is NOT from GOD! You are worshiping 'another'.
Only satan wants people NOT to believe - GOD ALONE!... SOLA SCRIPTURA where Remembrance is Remembrance!
And where a GIFT is a GIFT!
And where It is Written that It Is Finished and JESUS shed ALL His Blood for ALL.
And if ALL believed God - where would that leave satan? NO ONE TO DECEIVE, again! No vatican to sit on and declare 'infallibility' and deceptive teachings.
The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught." Isaiah 29:13
"They worship me IN VAIN; their teachings are merely human rules." Mark 7:7
"These rules, which have to do with things that are ALL DESTINED TO PERISH with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings." Colossians 2:22
GOD'S Holy Spirit inspired WORD IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY.
Either HEAR and OBEY GOD ALONE and be HIS or listen to 'another' and continue being children of the dark.
"And then I will confess to them, 'I have never known you, remove yourselves far from Me, you workers of evil." Matt 7:23
You wrote:
“There is no flesh in heaven nor blood! GOD is SPIRIT!”
Jesus took on flesh. He is God, Son of God.
1) Are you denying that Jesus is God?
2) Are you denying Jesus is Man?
Look again at 2 Tim. What is Paul saying except that “all Scripture” is beneficial for that which he names with the outcome cited. Tradition not named, not included.
What kind of logic is Prot. logic I don't know but my question was quite simply:
Can either of us name a single Sacred Tradition necessary to being a completely equipped and competent Christian not already available in All Scripture?
You note the Trinity teaching in saying “Since not all Christian beliefs are coined exactly in Scripture....”
Then are the Scriptures lacking any necessary Christian beliefs that Tradition contains and explains? It sounds like you're saying ‘Yes’.
Yes, I looked at those resources and found they didn't really answer my question as well as I hoped you might, hence I directed my question to you as a well versed person in the subject. So humor me a bit, my questions are not mocking or sarcastic even if probing tender spots.
And their arrogance to imply a GIFT from God is something one has to work for and that puts them UNDER THE LAW - right where satan wants them!
their arrogance to say Mary is co-redeemer and to pray to/for the dead or any of their 'saint for the day' is their helper.
their arrogance to say there is oral and not only what is written - so satan has them believing 'another'.
their arrogance to claim to be christian when they are deceived pawns of evil/children of the dark.
The list is endless.
"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit"
Do any of the Protestants actually read the Bible, or do they just believe what ever pastor polyester suit and doughnuts for fellowship tells them?
Catholics stupidly think reading - without understanding - the Bible - they actually know something because the throne of satan/vatican teaches them they do. They are impressed with the 'fancy linen' and the 'acting holy' so the con men were able to make them eat the deceptive donut/cracker.
God's Word is The FINAL authority.
I know - I keep reminding the DECEIVED of that when THEY REFUSE to BELIEVE JESUS The WORD. JESUS IS The FINAL Authority - and catholics mock it and say 'it's a book' and instead refer to 'the teachings of 'man' and lift up 'man'/Mary as their queen and helper and other things from evil/man as well. Claiming a 'man' to be infallible is satan's way of mocking God as satan sits on the vatican throne and catholics BOW to it.
JESUS CAME in the flesh and SPOKE whatever HIS FATHER said and DID whatever He saw HIS Father doing!
And JESUS laid down HIS GLORY to be OBEDIENT to His Father and came in the flesh to redeem ALL - and the deceived CONTINUE not to BELIEVE Jesus/who is GOD'S WORD but believed 'their father' of the dark with his 'man made teachings' as their final authority.
1) Are you denying that Jesus is God? 2) Are you denying Jesus is Man?
ARE YOU DENYING JESUS IS The WORD and GOD'S WORD IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY?
Or are you hell bent in staying under the thumb of satan/Vatican where 'man made teachings' reign? "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also on the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."
OK. If that's your reasoning, about sola scriptura......
Do you actually ever read the Bible?
You sound just like a liberal...Yes I do read the scriptures but I don't waste much time in the Catholic bibles...
Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Cephas or Kephas means a rock or a stone in Chaldee and Aramaic...
Peter means a small rock or stone in Greek...
Peter was never called a rock in the translations of the the scriptures...
The Greek word Petra occurs 16 times in the New Testament and never once does it refer to Peter, or Cephas...
Everywhere Petros occurs in the scriptures it is always a reference to Peter...
Of course you would know that being a Greek Scholar...
Maybe it’s nola scriptura. I don’t know..... Can I post a caucus thread and ask questions?
Since most recognize that the Biblical canon is closed to further additions, Is the same true for that body of so-called “Sacred Tradition”? By that I mean can the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church add or discover or pronounce that which was once considered nonessential myth or legend is now part of “Sacred Tradition” that must be accepted as part of faith and that would stand with equal authority with written Scripture?
If NOT then “Sacred Tradition” is a set body of oral teachings that cannot grow or shrink. If YES, an example of such happening would be good to see.
Of course those are just my questions.
The Bible clearly says that Elijah was taken up to heaven while he was ALIVE, Period, Amen, end of discussion. You want to engage in Eisigesis that is fine, but anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that Elijah was taken bodily up to heaven while still alive.
Now be a man and admit you screwed up. My guess is that you won't.
DON’T YOU SEE THE POINT! The list of books to be included in Bibles is a Tradition.
No one said he wasn't. Your reading and comprehension is sorely lacking. So keep what comes 'out of the lack' to yourself! I'm not interested. But that would stop you from your slurs because evil commands that you. Go away!
No worries, you're not probing "tender spots". My belief in the Catholic Faith (including divine revelation through Sacred Tradition) is as tough as nails.
Here's the thing though. If I am understanding what you are looking for correctly, you are looking for dogmas of the Catholic Church that are not in the Bible (ie. based on Sacred Tradition). And you equally want to know which Traditions are necessary to make a Christian complete.
Aren't you just setting me up here? LOL I could give you a few examples of Catholic dogma that might fit the definition of Sacred Tradition, but since you disagree with them as being "necessary" because they are not in the Bible in the first place, isn't it irrelevant to you anyway? Why do you even care to get the answer to this question?:
Can either of us name a single Sacred Tradition necessary to being a completely equipped and competent Christian not already available in All Scripture?
Seriously, what is the point? So you can come back at me and say, well, that's not necessary to make a Christian complete because it's not in the Bible?
C'mon now.
Pot meet kettle.
Answer my questions and I’ll be happy to answer yours.
I asked:
1) Are you denying that Jesus is God?
2) Are you denying Jesus is Man?
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.