Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
Apologetics ping!
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 isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t 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 necessary—a rule of faith—but 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.”
Ohhh, right.
“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.)
I’ll 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:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/an-articulation-of-sola-scriptura.html
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 Lystra—what 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.
NYer,
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 Church’s authority to teach God’s truth;
4. denial that God’s 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! It’s amazing how hard they try to discount scripture to facilitate the deception of the RCC isn’t 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?
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.