A significant tenet of Martin Luther’s revolt against the Catholic Church involved the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This doctrine teaches that the Bible is our only guide on earth and that everything we need to know we can learn from the Bible. A fundamental aspect of Sola Scriptura is the notion that the Holy Spirit will lead us in our study of God’s Word, so that we will properly understand the sometimes confusing Scriptures in the way God intended. This article takes a quick look at the claims of Sola Scriptura using reason and Biblical scholarship to determine if they are justified.
First, I’ll analyze the docrine using history and reason as a guide. Historically, the first problem arises when we look at Bible history. The first books of the Bible weren’t written until 60 to 70 A.D., some 30 years after the Crucifixion. To further confound matters, there was no “Bible” at that time, but rather an Old Testament collection (with little dispute over the books included) and many single manuscripts floating around at the various churches. Some manuscripts were considered “inspired by God” others were not, but few individual churches had access to all of the manuscripts. It wasn’t until around 300 A.D. that the Catholic Church decided on the books that were going to be included in the Bible. Some books that many considered inspired, such as the Gospel of Peter, were not included. Others that were very controversial, such as Revelation (Apocolypse), were included.
Ultimately our fundamental trust in the infallibility of the Bible is directly conferred upon the Catholic Church, because they choose the books that were to be included. We cannot say we believe every word of the Bible without silently agreeing that we believe the Catholic Church in 300 A.D. choose the right books and put them together. In terms of Sola Scriptura, what about those who lived before 300 A.D.? Protestants adhere to the “Roman Road” that leads to salvation, but many Christians during that time did not have access to the book of Romans. Very few Christians had access to more than a couple of books of Scripture – we certainly can’t say they were exposed to the full Truth – so they had no choice but to trust in the Church and Tradition (capital T) as well as the books they had.
In time Martin Luther revolted from the Church. He had various problems with the Church, many of which were issues that needed to be resolved. But rather than work towards reforming the Catholic Church, Luther broke off and formed his own religion. It was at this point that Luther made some of the more drastic changes to his personal religious point of view. He formulated the two legs of the Reformation sola fides (by faith alone) and sola scriptura (by Scripture alone). In addition, he made one very odd move: he began removing books of scripture (and in some cases chapters of Scripture) that he didn’t personally believe in. So Luther refashioned himself as the arbiter of Scripture and the one protestants must trust implicitly (in several ways). In addition, as stated elsewhere on this blog, Luther also added a key word to the Bible that changed the meaning of a key passage – Luther needed this change to support his version of sola fides.
Now after several hundred years, we can finally see the end result of sola scriptura: chaos. There are more denominations of protestants every day and every one feels the Holy Spirit is teaching their personal philosophy. Some groups, such as the Mormons, have decided the Holy Spirit led them to create additional books of the Bible. Other groups have chosen obviously incorrect interpretations of Scripture that completely ignore the obvious; a good example exists with the recent Episcopalian decisions. We are headed toward a form of Protestantism where every church has a different set of beliefs that change when a new pastor is introduced. History has not judged Martin Luther’s ideas kindly.
Why does this matter? Why do Catholics point to the division between churches as a defining failure of sola scriptura? Because of Scripture and the nature of the Holy Spirit. First, scripture refers in several places to the “unity” of the church and it’s members. See Eph 4:3 and, more importantly, the prayer of Christ:
John 17:20-21. I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Clearly, Christ intended for us to be “one” as the Trinity is one. The division of protestants points to the problem: obviously every church can’t be lead by the Holy Spirit. Often the various denominations are teaching contradictory versions of salvation. If Jesus is our shepherd and the leader of the church, then how can there be so much confusion, particularly on salvation? This suggests the confusion is man-made and the dissention between denominations is a deviation of the Truth, rather than the fullness of it.
Now we arrive at what protestants probably see as the most important issue, what does the Bible teach? Keep in mind that the Bible was written as a set of separate books with virtually none of the authors realizing that the work would eventually be include in one master book. So the Bible never refers to itself as a complete work – it wasn’t written that way. Nevertheless, the Bible does have some important things to say on this topic. Let’s start with the obvious:
2 Tim 1:13. Hold fast to the teaching which you have heard from me in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
For starters, Paul seems to be suggesting that they remember his spoken words, rather than simply his written words. The indication is that Paul has taught them things of importance that he did not write down. This would further suggest that maybe the Bible doesn’t contain every single thing necessary for proper interpretation. Also note this verse in Timothy:
2 Tim 2:2. and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
But this is simply the writing of Paul, right? So as long as we have all the words of Christ it really shouldn’t matter (He, after all, is the one who taught the disciples). But do we have all the words of Christ?
Mark 4:33. With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it;Mark 6:34. As he landed he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.
In both of the verses above, Mark seems to suggest that Jesus taught things that were not recorded in scripture. To take it another step, what did Jesus teach:
John 16:12-13. [Christ speaking] “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;
This is a very powerful verse. Christ is teaching that there are many things to say, but the people are not ready for them. So, the people will have to wait for the Holy Spirit to come (at Pentacost after the Crucifixion) and lead them “into all truth.” Jesus is clearly suggesting that not all of the Truth will be known until after He is back in heaven. We can assume from the text that Holy Spirit will teach this over time (as the people are ready for each spoonful of Truth). This verse poses a problem for advocates of sola scriptura. There are many other verses that contradict the teaching of sola scriptura, here’s another example:
1 Thess 2:13. And we also thank God constantly for this, 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, which is at work in you believers. [my emphasis]
But so far we’ve heard only that there are extra-Biblical writings and sayings; nothing that suggests that they should be followed. But the Bible does teach this as well:
2 Thess 2:15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Paul is not only teaching that spoken ‘traditions’ were a reality, he’s also teaching that they must be followed. This is a very strong statement clearly contradicting Luther’s assertion that this information is useless. To restate, we are responsible for following the spoken traditions, but how can we follow what isn’t written? It is possible, but first lets look at this text:
Acts 8:30-31. So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Why did the Holy Spirit inspire Luke to add this to the Bible? Because it teaches a lesson He wanted everyone to understand: the Bible is not so obvious that you cannot understand it without help. Remember, this is Acts so the Holy Spirit is already working on earth. We would argue that the Ethiopian had access to the Holy Spirit and yet he needed guidance to properly understand the Bible. How are we so different?
Jesus gave us a “pillar and foundation” of Truth. He gave us a way to be confident that we are getting the Truth. We should follow the advice Paul gave Timothy:
1 Tim 3:15. if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.
The Bible calls the Chuch (not the Bible) the “pillar and bulwark of Truth.” This is a profound revelation to some protestants, but it clearly follows the intentions of Christ and His Church. Remember Matthew:
Matt 16:18-19. [Jesus speaking] “And I tell you, you are Peter [rock] and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus gave Peter the power to not only help others interpret Scripture, but also the power to affect heaven and earth. Jesus formed the Church to guide us and He gave us the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Sola scriptura tries to throw out the Traditions which the apostles and the Holy Spirit taught outside of the Bible in order to revolt against Christ’s Church. Sola scriptura is not only anti-Biblical, it is contrary to reason, history, and philosophy. It cannot be supported.
Jay
Here are a couple more excellent articles on Sola Scriptura. The first addresses the issue from a strictly practical view point. Definitely worth reading...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRACTICL.htm
The second is by Dr. Scott Hahn. It is very detailed and scholarly. It, like Jay's article, is rooted in Scripture itself and extremely enlightening. It even challenges Catholics who feel that reading Sacred Scripture is not important. Here is the link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/BIBLE.TXT
As I'm sure all can tell, we here at Deo Omnis Gloria are firm believers in the importance of seeking greater understanding of the Bible. I want to give Jay's article center stage for at least one more day but I will be posting indepth biblical commentaries taken from some of the leading Biblical scholars in the Church over the next week. They are certainly worth reading.
Jay,thank you so much for writing this great article! This is very informative. The Bible is a wonderful and holy tool... but I haven't believed that all of my life. I remember my days of protestantism when I thought the Bible was all we had. Thank GOD there is so much more!
The (Catholic) Church is so mysterious and wonderful! My favorite part of the faith is that it is TRUE!
I just discovered your website and plan to give it a good study soon. I am a protestant, but naturally want to be accurately informed when it comes to what Catholics believe. Through personal interaction, especially with some ex-girlfriends, I have discovered differences in what each group thinks the other group believes. So your site should be very valuable to me.
I have an immediate disagreement as I scanned your article on "Sola Scriptura" and that is your mention of Mormons would seem to imply they are a group of protestants. I would think a more accurate description would be that they are not, but rather a cult with Christian language and texts (however misused). Cults, heretics,idol worshippers, etc. have existed long before the Christian faith, and would exist with or without the protestant reformation. To say chaos exists because of Sola scriptura, for example look at Mormonism,(for that matter Jehovah's Witnesses, Word of Faith teachers, etc.) is a false conclusion. Paul's letters, Jesus' own teaching and correction, etc show there is always human nature tugging at and misshaping the truth for its own selfish desires, which produces heresy, cults etc.
Thats just my two cents worth and again, I look forward to reading through your website.
May God bless you.
Thanks for contributing, Joe, and welcome to our site - I hope we are able to fulfill your needs.
You make a good point: Mormons may not be protestants. However, my question in the article is, how can protestants condemn them for adding an entirely new book to the Bible? They are (in their opinion, albeit misguided) simply following the Holy Spirit's guidance.
Jay
Hello all.
These are interesting debates. I have noticed that the protestant thinkers here are few and far between, so I would like to stand beside them (especially Marc).
Jay seems to be an insightful thinker and a somewhat accomplished theologian, yet there are many errors in his above thesis. I will point out some of these errors in detail at a later stage. Today however, I would like to make some things very clear.
At one time, the Catholic Church published its doctrines in papers under the title, "Religious Information Bureau." The general reading public never took the time to investigate the bold Catholic assertions and allowed them to go unchallenged by the truth.
In their published "Information Bureau," they declared that Christ built the Catholic Church and they affirm that he built only one church. In this assertion, they have some truth mixed with error.
It is true that Christ built only one church, but it was not the Catholic Church. The church that Jesus built belongs to Christ and not to the pope. Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). This shows that the church belongs to Christ. All authentic church history teaches that the Roman Catholic Church was not developed as we now have it until some centuries after Christ established his church.
It is an error for Catholics to claim that Christ established the Catholic Church. Many will not take time to investigate this false Catholic claim that "Christ established only one church and that was the Catholic Church." A half truth is a lie. Christ built only one church, but that was not the Catholic Church.
The New Testament declares that the church Christ built is the "church of God," the "body of Christ," "the household of faith," etc. The New Testament nowhere mentions the Roman Catholic Church. Neither does it mention anything about the pope, who is the head of the Catholic Church. The New Testament church was cumbered with the ecclesiastical machinery that now belongs to the Catholic Church. Anyone who knows what the Catholic Church is and what the New Testament teaches can know there is the width of the poles between the Catholic Church and the church of Christ.
Christ did not build his church on the apostle Peter. In the new translation of the "New Testament Revised by the Catholic Church," we have this quotation: "Then Jesus answered and said, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:17-18).
In the notes of their "Revised New Testament," we have this comment: "In the gospels the word church is used only here and in 18:17. In the Old Testament it designated the assembly of Israel. Here, in speaking of his church, our Lord means a society of men united to serve God as he had taught them to do. Compared with an edifice, it is said to rest on a rock, as did the house of the wise man of 7:24. That rock was Peter. Of course, the strength of the foundation comes from Christ."
It is a bold claim of the Catholic Church that Christ built his church upon Peter. This is false and is abundantly disproved by the New Testament. The Holy Spirit said through Paul, "So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone." (Eph. 2:19-20).
Again, Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:10-11).
So Christ is the foundation upon which the church is built—not Peter. The fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, must be preached in order for one to truly preach Christ. When Catholics claim that the church was built upon Peter, they make a false claim, which contradicts the teachings of the Holy Spirit. This is a deadly offense against Christ.
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). The name Peter here means a stone, (John 1:42), and in the Greek it's in the masculine gender, Petros. "Upon this rock," as used by our Lord, contradicts the claims of the Catholic Church. Rock, as used here, is in the feminine gender, Petra. It refers to the foundation upon which Christ built his church. Petros, which means a stone, is one thing, and Petra, which means a ledge of rock, is another thing. Jesus did not say — neither did he mean to say — that his church would be built upon "a stone," but upon a solid "ledge of rock."
What was this Petra upon which the church was to be built? The Catholics claim that it was Peter, but the context shows this claim is untrue. It's clear from the context that Jesus, by using the term Petra, referred to the truth that Peter had just confessed, which was the deity of Jesus. The truth that Jesus is the Son of God is the most fundamental and basic of all truths pertaining to man's redemption.
Peter was not the head of the church that Christ built. Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope and, therefore, the head of the church. They claim that the pope of Rome is the head of the church that Christ built. Peter was not a pope at all, therefore he could not be the first pope.
Peter was a married man. "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying sick of a fever." (Matt. 8:14). This passage also tells us that Jesus healed Peter's wife's mother. To the church at Corinth, Paul said, "Have we not a right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor. 9:5).
Catholics deny the right of the pope to marry. Neither will they permit a cardinal, bishop or priest to marry. The pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, but he is not the head of God's church. The New Testament clearly, frequently, and emphatically teaches that Christ is the head of the church. (Eph. 5:23; 1:22; Col. 1:18). These and other scriptures teach that Christ is the head of the church and that he is over all things to the church. That leaves no room for Peter to be the head of the church, and it certainly doesn't leave any room for the pope of Rome to be the head of the church Christ built.
Blessings in Christ
-Simon
Some of my statements may seem hard, but all are made in grace and with the concern that I have for the many catholics I love. Nevertheless, I will continue to point out the errors of catholic theology. Let us briefly examine some misleading features of the Doctrine of Mary.
The Catechism alleges that the virgin Mary is the model and source of true holiness: "From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary..." Pg. 490, #2030
The Bible clearly states that "all" have sinned (Rom 3:23) There are many other Scriptural passages that speak of this fact. Paul for one clearly develops this argument in Romans. Yes, Mary was blessed to give birth to the Son of God, but that does not make her the source of holiness. Referring to herself, Mary marveled that God had: "... regarded the low estate of his handmaiden..." Luke 1:48. The Bible affirms repeatedly that God is our only model of holiness: "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee..." Revelation 15:4 "Exalt ye the LORD our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy." Psalm 99:5 "Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy." Psalm 99:3
Never do we read in Scripture about Mary being holy, much less the source or model of holiness: "Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the LORD our God is holy." Psalm 99:9 "And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Isaiah 6:3
The words "holy" or "holiness" are used over 600 times in the Bible. Not once does either word refer to Mary. God announces that we should be holy, as He is holy, not as Mary is holy: "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:15-16 "For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy..." Leviticus 11:44
Roman Catholic friend, do you see the difference here? God's Word repeatedly instructs you to look to the eternal God of the universe as your model and source of holiness. Catholicism counters, saying, "No, don' t look to God, look to this frail, human woman." This is nothing short of blasphemy. And we can only ask, "Why does the Catholic church attempt to dethrone God Almighty from His rightful place and set Mary on His throne instead? Why does Catholicism want you looking to Mary for your example of holiness instead of God? God deserves all glory and honor. Plus, He is a jealous God who reminds us that: "... I will not give my glory unto another." Isaiah 48:11
Who will be YOUR model of holiness? God Almighty... or a sinful woman? Catholicism demands you look to the woman. The Bible declares that only God is qualified: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
Furthermore, how does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?: "Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..." Pg. 252, #969 "Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Pg. 125, #494
Is this doctrine scriptural? According to God's Word, Mary has never had anything to do with the salvation process. Scripture reveals that Jesus is the ONLY One who can provide salvation: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 Jesus Himself declared that He is the ONLY way to heaven: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved... " John 10:9
Still the Catechism insists: "She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son." Pg. 303, #1172
Once again, it comes down to who you will believe, the Bible or church tradition? The Bible is unmistakably clear: "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11 "Yet I am the LORD thy God... there is no saviour beside me." Hosea 13:4 "The God of my rock he is... my saviour..." 2 Samuel 22:3
Before Jesus was born, an angel announced that He would be the Savior: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21 After Jesus' birth, the angel repeated himself: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:11
Over and over, we read that Jesus is the Savior:
"... we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." John 4:42 "Him (Jesus) hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour..." Acts 5:31 "Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:" Acts 13:23 "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ..." 2 Timothy 1:10 "Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour." Titus 1:4 "Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;" Titus 3:6 "... the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." 1 John 4:14
Look at the words of Peter, recognized as Catholicism's first pope: "... through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" 2 Peter 1:1 "... into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1:11 "... through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ..." 2 Peter 2:20
Certainly, Peter knew that Jesus, not Mary, was the Savior. Peter glorified Jesus as the Savior, not Mary: "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen." 2 Peter 3:18
This same Peter declares that: "... ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" 1 Peter 1:18-19
Without question, Jesus is the Savior, not Mary.
The facts leave several questions needing answers that I challenge Jay or any other resident thinker to answer:
Why does the Catholic church want people looking to Mary instead of Jesus for salvation?
Why is glory stolen from Jesus and given to Mary? If Mary plays a role in salvation, why didn' t God tell us so in His Word?
Most importantly, who will you trust to save you? The Mary of church tradition, or the Jesus of God' s Word? "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" Philippians 3:20
I will conclude by saying that I seek not to offend my dear catholic brethren. I love you all dearly in Christ. Yet I am obligated to speak the truth in love.
Blessings in Christ,
Simon
Simon,
What are you talking about? I have been a Catholic my entire life and I have never heard of this apparent "Religious Information Bureau", and I do not believe such a thing actually existed, except in the mind of some radical fundamentalist. Try proving some historical proof that such a thing existed and then show open, declarative support for such a thing by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (the Pope, in union with the bishops). I am very familiar with the various Councils of the Catholic Church and I know for a fact that such a "bureau" is never mentioned.
Second, in regards to Christ founding the Catholic Church, how does Scripture contradict the fact that Christ appointed Peter to be the head of his Church? I think you need to read my post of the Primacy of Peter. I noticed you didn't make any comments there.
And since you continue to believe that the Catholic Church was created by some group centuries after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, allow me to quote a few of the Early Church Fathers.
"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who were afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame, humbly, peaceably, and with dignity, and who have for many years received the commendations of all, we consider it unjust that they be removed from the ministry." - St. Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, 80 A.D.
So here we find St. Clement, less than 50 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, clearly speaking about apostolic succession and the Church.
Next quote...
"Whereever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as whereever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 110 A.D.
Can you believe that? They are calling the Church Christ established "Catholic", and this was written approximately 80 years after the resurrection of Christ.
Next quote:
"The Church of God which sojourns in Smyrna, the Church of God which sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place: May mercy, peace, and love of God the Father and of our Lord Jesus Christ be given you in abundance." - The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, 155 A.D.
Again, another reference to the Catholic Church.
Then again:
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled." - The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, 155 A.D.
Again, and again we find reference to the Church of the early christians being Catholic. I think you will find it much harder to prove the opposite.
So let me address the point you make about Peter with this quote for one of the Early Church Fathers:
"And again He (Jesus) says to him (Peter) after the resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (Jn 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still hold the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 251 A.D.
Just as America can trace its presidents all the way back to the founding of our country, so too can the Catholic Church trace the line of popes all the way back to Peter.
In reference to what you say about priestly celibacy, you are correct that Peter was married but the Church, in listening to the words of Christ and St. Paul, in Sacred Scripture, decided that it would be better for a man not to marry who wished to commit his entire life to spreading the Gospel:
"The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is expedient to marry.' But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:10-12).
Then St. Paul wrote:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).
Based on these two passages from the Bible, I don't think you have any ground for your attack against priestly celibacy. On a side note, there is no reference to Peter's wife being alive at the time of Peter's accepting Christ's call to discipleship, many scholars believe that she more than likely had dead before hand. Please note that in Matthew 8, after being healed, the mother-in-law rises and prepares food for Jesus and the apostles. This would have been the normal duty of the wife during that time period, if she were living.
We are really trying to keep our articles and the comments that follow focused on the matter being discussed in the article. You post a lot here, regarding various topics. The one topic you continually avoid is the topic of this article, Sola Scriptura. All of the other issues become mood points if the entire foundation for determining truth, that you so desparately cling to, is false - basically that the Bible is the sole authority for knowing truth. No where in the Bible does it say that we are to "ONLY" rely on the Bible for instruction and guidance. In fact, it states just the opposite. Yet you (and Marc) fail to provide any clear, concise biblical proofs to support your position. Just think about...better yet pray about it, ask the Holy Spirit to show you the truth.
In Christ,
Joe
In reference to Mary, for now I will say this, the Catholic Church is 100% correct in all that it teaches in reference to the Mother of God. She is our mother, her "yes" preceded all others, including yours. Regardless of what you might think, the Most Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit chose her to be the Mother of God. She hold a special place within the scope of salvation history. She was the one Jesus chose to come to us through. She changed the entire course of humanity with her faithful "yes". And all that she tells us...to this day, is to do whatever her Son, our Lord, Jesus tells us. Just as she did at the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:5). I love her, you owe her your love and devotion, for she is truly "blessed among women" (Luke 1:42) and "all generations shall call her blessed" (Luke 1:48).
Catholics do not worship Mary, we simply ask for her prayers and show reverence to our Matriarch in faith, the cause of our joy, for truly her "yes", her obedience to the Will of God is what caused our "joy", Jesus to come into this world. Catholics do not view Mary as the "source of our salvation" rather the channel that God chose to use to send our salvation, Jesus Christ, into the world. It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.
In Christ,
Joe
I can give you an answer on this topic. Before I do however, I would like to resond to a post by a "reconciled catholic" on another part of this forum. Mr. Currie seems to have based his "reconciliation" with the Catholic Church on some rather shaky ground. I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Currie was ever a believer in Sola Scriptura, or whether he actually even understands what the term implies. To begin with, there are several interpretations of Matt 23:2-3, none of which to my knowledge have ever led to the conlcusions that he seems to draw apon. Surprisingly he has obviously not done any exegetical research on the topic he is trying to argue. This is odd because he appears to be quite a thinker, regardless of the fact that his philosophical comments don't really do much to strengthen his case. Nevertheless, all he has to do is read a little further in the passage and he will find that Jesus is not speaking of obedience to tradition positively (see verse 5 and 6) What surprises me even further is that the moderators of this site would post such a weak argument on this site in the hope of furthering their refuting of Sola Scriptura.
Although in parts, quite an intersting read, Mr. Currie's story, niether philsophically or exegetically answers the question that it raises.
No one is refuting the idea that there is authority in oral tradition. What is at stake is how "much" authority should one place in tradition and why. In the passages he quotes, Paul is arguing for the importance of handing down traditional teachings and values. No one in my camp will deny that. But there is a qualitative difference between believeing in the authority of tradition and the credence one gives to tradition, considering the fact that it has been handed down from generation to generation by sinful men. Of course catholics believe that the popes (starting with Peter who even admited to Jesus that he was a sinful man) have somewhere along the line inherited this capacity for infallability. Many of your own Popes in the past have eserted themselves as being the final authority on earth over the souls of men. The whole idea or "The Church" having authority has taken away from what Jesus came to do and put it back into the hands of men.
Please answer this question: If you believe in the apparent infallability of apostolic succession, that must also mean that all the evils that The Church has poured out on mankind through history have been warrented or justified?
Perhaps you should agree that as a true catholic you really have no basis for using the bible to argue your case, because you are not allowed to interpret it for yourself anyway. Think on some of these observations:
Are Catholics able to interpret God's Word for themselves? "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Pg. 30, #100 Can only the pope and the leadership of the Catholic church properly interpret God's Word? Let's go to the Bible and see how God feels about this teaching. When Paul and Silas preached in Berea, the people: "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11 In other words, they interpreted the Scriptures for themselves with the help of the Holy Spirit. "And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" Mark 12:24
Why did Jesus chastise the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures if it was impossible for them to interpret them? And why did Peter, Catholicism's first " pope," declare the following? "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20. Why does Paul instruct us to study the Bible if we can't interpret it? "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
Jesus admonished the Jews to: "Search the scriptures..." John 5:39 Why would He do that, if He knew they couldn't interpret them? Who does the interpreting? The Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit, not a group of men, will interpret Scripture for God's children and will help them to understand all things: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." John 16:13
The Apostle Paul recognized that the Holy Spirit was the One who taught him: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:13 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." 1 Corinthians 2:12
Why are Christians commanded to memorize the Scriptures if they can' t understand them? "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalm 119:11"Keep my commandments, and live... write them upon the table of thine heart." Proverbs 7:2-3
The following verses of Scripture should alarm anyone who believes they need a church to interpret the Bible for them: "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie , and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:26-27
Could God's position be any plainer? Why is the Catholic church so determined to interpret the Scriptures for you? Is it because they want to control you and keep you in bondage to Catholicism? Are they afraid that if you read the Scriptures for yourself, you might discover that Catholic doctrines are contrary to God's Word? Do you really believe that all non-Catholics are groping around in spiritual blindness, needing the Catholic church to interpret the Bible for them?
You must settle these things in your own mind, but your most important decision is: "Who will interpret Scripture for you... the Holy Spirit of God or the Roman Catholic church?" Your answer to that question will determine who you will obey and eventually where you will spend eternity:
"O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. " Psalm 119:97-99
I think I have given a substantial response to the question being asked. I dont think I need to give you more biblical passages that speak of the Scriptures as being the final authoritity. You have seen them all and still you point to Martin Luther and others who only put into motion an idea that goes back long before the Catholic Church ever existed. Of course you will all be able to find fault with Luther, just as I can find fault with your papal history. But neither argument is really addressing the question at hand. Only the bible can do that.
Regards in Christ
Simon
Simon,
Can you tell me how you know that the New Testament should have 27 books in it? Scripture states nowhere the "list" of books that belong to itself. So how do you know?
Hi savrx,
All of us agree that the bible (wether it be the catholic bible or the 66 book set that protestants espouse)is a 'compilation' of books or writings. Of course the Scriptures cannot state 'how many' of those books should belong to itself, because the writers themeselves (at the time of writing) would not have known when and how those books would become cannonized.
However, there are is a clear historical backround to the process. Criteria were set down by which writings could be judged, to determine which were strictly authoritative and divine and hence should become the standards of faith and practice for the Church.
Here are five of the criteria used in deciding what books should be included in the Bible:
• Authorship. Who wrote the book or epistle? Was it an apostle, a well-known church member or an unknown person?
• Local church acceptance. What opinion of the book or epistle was held by the first-century Church? Did they read it? Did they accept it as accurate? Did it square with their experience?
• Recognition by church fathers. Did the fathers of the Church in the second century regard the book as authentic? (These were the disciples of the disciples. For example, Polycarp was a pupil of John the Apostle. The question would be asked: What did Polycarp think about this book?)
• Subject matter. What was the book or epistle about? Was it doctrinally sound? Did it contradict other books? Were the stories in the book wild and fanciful?
• Personal edification. Did the book have the potential to inspire, convict or edify the local congregation and individual believers?
One of these criteria alone was insufficient to make the book acceptable; books were judged by a combination of criteria.
The councils provide us with specific records in which the Church spoke clearly and in unison as to what constitutes Scripture. Among the many councils that met during the first four centuries, two are particularly important in this context:
(1) The Council of Laodicea met in Asia Minor about A.D. 363. This is the first council which clearly listed the canonical books of the present Old and New Testaments, with the exception of the Apocalypse of Saint John. The Laodicean council stated that only the canonical books it listed should be read in church. Its decisions were widely accepted in the Eastern Church.
(2) The third Council of Carthage met in North Africa about A.D. 397. This council, attended by Augustine, provided a full list of the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. The twenty-seven books of the present-day New Testament were accepted as canonical. The council also held that these books should be read in the church as Divine Scripture to the exclusion of all others. This Council was widely accepted as authoritative in the West.
There are good reasons to reject all of the Apocrypha from the list of inspired Scriptures. The books of the Apocrypha were never included in the Old Testament by the Pharisees. They were never quoted, either by Jews or by any other New Testament writer. The great Jewish historian Josephus excluded them. The well-known Jewish philosopher Philo did not recognize them. Even the early church fathers excluded them. The bishops of Rome required the Apocrypha to be included, even though Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible, the basis for the Roman Catholic Bible today, did not deem these book worthy to be included in the canon. No apocryphal book can be found in any catalog list of canonical books composed during the first four centuries A.D. In fact, it was not until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Apocrypha was officially recognized by the Roman church and required to be included in the Catholic Bible.
That leaves 66 books—all of which were recognized by the early Church as being the inspired writings of God, all of which have been collected in a sacred library we call the Bible.
There is one important thing to remember, however. The Bible is not an authorized collection of books. It's a collection of authorized books. The Bible is not inspired by God because men say it is; men say it is because the Bible is inspired by God. The 27 books of the New Testament are not inspired because the Third Council of Carthage proclaimed them to be inspired. These 27 books are inspired by God whether any council proclaims them to be so or not. The Council of Carthage proclaimed them to be inspired because they are inspired. We can read our Bibles with great confidence that we are actually reading the mind of God, as it was revealed to men. Imagine! You have God's Word! Know it in your head; stow it in your heart; show it in your life; and sow it in the world.
Don't let the Church take away this beautiful privillege that God has given you. Take the bible, read if for yourself. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in understanding it (He will lead you into all truth John 16:13). Don't let the pope, a priest, the Church, or anyone else dictate to you its interpretation. If you do not understand a certain passage or verse, pray about it. Seek the Lord. Get some opinions. Then read widely. Expand your mind and allow yourself to become the person God created you to be--not subject to a governing body of earthly sinful men, but in subjection to Jeses the risen and exalted Christ. Your decision on this matter will have ramifications both in this life and in the life to come.
In Christ,
Simon
Simon,
You're making some pretty grave errors.
First, just to try and interject some truth into the discussion: the seven books that you term "apocryptha" were listed as Scripture at both the councils (Hippo - 393 and Carthage - 397) that "cannonized" (your word) the Bible. All are included in the Septuagint, which is the version of the Old Testament that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from. Virtually all of the Early Church Fathers quoted from these books in the same way they quoted other Scripture. Both of the earliest Greek manuscripts (Codexx Sinaiticus - 300's AD and Codex Alexandrinus - 450 AD) included these books along with the rest of Scripture.
Finally, even protestants agree with me. One example, the protestant "New English Bible" by Oxford University Press admits that the first time they were separated from the Bible was 1520. Where do you get your information? You should probably check sources first.
Up until the 1500's no one questioned whether these books should be included. Martin Luther, however, had to get rid of some of them. When Luther started throwing them out, the Catholic Church made a specific pronouncement that they absolutely were Scriptural, which is what happened in 1546! Don't try and rewrite history.
Why did Luther not like these books? Their teachings: prayer for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Mac 12:39-45) and the intercession of dead saints (2 Mac 15:14) to start. He was starting a new religion and these verses interfered with his grand plans.
Note that Martin Luther wanted to throw out many other books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation), but was talked out of it. I suppose if he had, you would be arguing they never existed in the Bible as well.
By the way, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found they not only included what you term "Scripture," they also included "apocrypthal" books.
Jay
On last point, I have a question: if Jesus had intended for us to only have the Bible going forward, why wouldn't he have written at least a book? Or put it together while on earth? Or at least said, "I'll give you the Bible as your guide"?
Why? Because He intended for us to lean on the Church. The Church Christ himself established (Matt 16:16-19) and Paul proclaimed "the pillar and bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Christ gave us the Church and God continues to watch over and keep it, which is why we can trust it.
Why was Acts 8:30-31 considered so important by God it should be inspired? Because it teaches you the fallacy of believing so much in yourself that you do not need God's Church. The Church is established as the keeper of Truth (even the Bible agrees). Simon, you keep making fundamental mistakes in research and throwing obscenely incorrect statements out here. Why? Because you are solely dependant upon your personal research. I have the Truth, so there is no question I am correct. The Bible agrees with my position and no one yet has shown how sola scriptura is a valid teaching. Why? Because sola scriptura is Biblically invalid and wrong. Don't keep deceiving yourself, trust in Jesus who gave us a Church and promised "the gates of hell shall not stand up against it."
Jay
Jay,
Let me explain my position more thoroughly. Before I do however, I would like to point out that we will most certainly not agree on certain "historical" issues and events.
Though there are some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers (Hebrews 11:35 compares with 2 Maccabees 7, 12) there is no direct quote from them. Also, neither Jesus, nor any New Testament writer ever refers to these fourteen or fifteen books as authoritative.
Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, “It is written,” or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way simply because the Apocrypha was never considered part of canonical Jewish scripture.
The Apocryphal books were written in Greek AFTER the close of the Old Testament canon. Futhermore, There is NO evidence that the books were in the Septuagint as early as the time of Christ. Remember, the earliest manuscripts that have them date back to the fourth century A.D. Even if they were in the Septuagint at this early date, it is noteworthy that neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from them.
Jay, dont accuse me of apparently throwing around innacurate statements when you make some serious errors yourself. Did you not say, "Up until the 1500's no one questioned whether these books should be included." Well, I must say this is a most proposterous statement! Even your own historians agree that some of the early leaders of the church accepted them, while many did not—Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few. Luther was certainly not the first person who saught to expell the Apocrypha.
The evidence that Augustine accepted the Apocrypha is at best ambiguous. For one thing, he omits Baruch and includes 1 Esdras, thus accepting one and rejecting another in contrast to the Council of Trent. For another, he seemed to change his mind later about the validity of the Apocrypha.
Jerome, while making a Latin translation of the Bible, disputed with Augustine about the value of these additional books. Though Jerome did not want to translate them, he eventually made a hurried translation of them but kept them separate from his translation of the Bible. Ironically, after his death, these books were brought into his Latin translation.
Even the Roman Catholic church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Reformation. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, in 1518 published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.
Even so, the Roman church accepted only eleven of the fifteen books; we naturally would expect that these books, since they were together for so many centuries, would be either accepted or rejected together.
Have you ever really read these books? The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.
What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.
These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.
Indeed the Dead Sea Scrolls included Scripture as well as Apocrypha, but I hardly see how a statement like that supports your argument. Perhaps you should study the background of the Dead Sea Scrolls before you comment on them further.
Some of the statements you make about the Church are true. The only difference is that Christ never designed it in the way you have come to see it. The design of the Roman Catholic Church is purly and solely crafted by man. After all a man (the pope) is always its final custodian of truth.
Just like Joe, your arguments are becoming exceedinglt weak. You are using less and less of the Bible in your posts. The verses you do use are always the same ones and of course your hermeneutical position is not one you can assume of your own accord because you can only interpret the bible in the way the Church allows you. Basically you are falling back to the most comfortable position you have. You may as well say, "the Church says it, I believe it and that settles it."
P.S. You still have not answered one of my questions from a previous post. Does not accepting the infallability of the papal see also assume the infallability of all their actions throughout history? When the pope and other Catholic leaders, who claim to be infallible, disagree with God' s Holy Word, then God must be wrong. Are you willing to accept this? Stop answering my questions with questions. Give me a strightforward answer. What we are discussing is at the centre of sola scriptura. You keep saying "the bible agrees with your position," yet you keep quoting the same several verses over and over again. The bible does NOT agree with your position. If you hold the bible as authoritative in any form, you must see it as being able to interpret itself somewhere. This you fail to do with any conviction.
-In Christ
I would like to continue by giving you an example of what I mean regarding your candid use of Scripture.
You contends that the Lord was referring to Peter as the rock, and has since built the entire Catholic religion upon that premise. But all other pertinent Scriptures declare that Jesus was referring to Himself as the rock, not Peter: "... for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4
Jesus is not only the rock, He is the chief cornerstone of the church: "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:20
Back in the Old Testament, it was prophesied that Jesus, whom men rejected, would become the cornerstone of the church: "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." Psalm 118:22
Even Peter, allegedly the first pope, confesses that Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church: "...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth... This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:10-11 "... the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner," 1 Peter 2:7
According to Scriptures, Peter is NOT the rock:
"For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?" Psalm 18:31
"... I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock..." Deuteronomy 32:3-4 "Truly my soul waiteth upon God... He only is my rock..." Psalm 62:1-2 "But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge." Psalm 94:22
Who is the head of the church? Despite all these Scriptures, Catholicism still claims that Peter was the rock and his successors are the head of the church: "The sole Church of Christ (is that) which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successors of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." Pg. 215, #816
But the Bible declares that Jesus Christ, not Peter or his successors, is the head of the church: "And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18 "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:22 "But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephesians 4:15
When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, not just to members of the Catholic church: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." 1 Corinthians 1:2
The Apostle Paul wrote: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians 5:25
Paul was not a Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Catholic. Would anyone suggest that God only loves Catholics?... or that He only died for Catholics? Such would be the case if the Catholic church was the only church.
Paul also proclaimed: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." Ephesians 5:2
Can non-Catholics be Christians? As the "one true church," Catholicism claims the right to determine who is or is not a Christian:
"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." Pg 216, #818
In other words, if you have not been baptized into the Catholic church, you are not a Christian. These are not my words, but the words of the official Catholic Catechism. But according to Scripture, it doesn't matter if the Catholic church has accepted you or not. If your faith is in Jesus Christ alone, then He has already accepted you: "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he (Jesus) hath made us accepted in the beloved." Ephesians 1:6
At this point, you must make a few decisions:
Is Peter really the rock? The Catechism says he is, but God's Word says he is not.
Is the Catholic church the one true church? The Catechism says yes, but the Bible says no.
Do you really believe that all non-Catholics will burn in hell? Once again, the answers to each of these questions will be determined by which you choose to believe... the traditions of men, or God' s Word. Jesus asked the Pharisees a question which all Roman Catholics should ponder:
"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matthew 15:3
Dear Catholic Reader, I am arguing and proving the case for sola scriptura, simply by allowing the bible to speak for itself and thus reveal itself as authoritative.
-Blessings in Christ,
Simon
Dear Simon,
To get anywhere with these dialogues we must pick one topic and stick with it. You're jumping around too much. Put Catholics in their place by showing them the verse which states that the "Bible alone" is the sole rule of faith. That'll settle it once and for all.
Thanks.
Daniel
Simon, Simon, Simon,
First, let me go to your question. No, accepting the infallability of the popes does not mean I accept their mistakes. You misunderstand infallability. A pope is only infallable when teaching on faith or morals and when he intends to be infallable. Because he holds the seat of St. Peter, this is true.
In Acts 1:20-26, Peter instructs the rest of the disciples to replace the "office" of Judas. So, would you agree, that if they were going to pick someone to fill Judas' "office" they would also do so for the other apostles when they died? If there were any office that should be left vacant, it would be Judas' right?
So, we believe that Jesus established Peter as the Rock on which Jesus built His Church (Matt 15:18). He also gave Peter the "Keys to the Kingdom" (Matt 15:19) so that whatever Peter bound on earth shall be bound in heaven. Jesus' also commanded Peter alone to "feed [Jesus'] sheep" (John 21:15-17) and to "strengthen your brethern (Luke 22:31-32). There is no question that Peter is head of the Church.
I found a great listing in "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" that helps prove my point:
It goes on and on (50 points in all). Let me know if you'd like to see more, but much of it is in Acts.
As far as your comment that I'm quoting less and less Scripture, that's obviously because we are discussing the composition of the Bible, something the Bible never discusses. There are other Old Testament books that are never quoted in the New Testament, should we throw them out as well? There are other seemingly "fanciful" stories, such as Jonah being swallowed by a whale, would you throw this book out? There are other factual errors in the Old Testament, notably the problem of the parting of the "Red" Sea, which couldn't occur where the Bible describes it, and yet you agree this book is Scripture. Your choices when developing the Canon of Scripture would have been unique, unfortunately for you, God gave that power to the Catholic Church. Just because they developed a Canon you don't like doesn't mean you can change it.
As for your second post, here's a list of protestants who agree that Peter is the "Rock": Alford Broadus, Kiel, Kittel, Cullmann, Albright, Robert McAfee Brown, R.T. France, D.A. Carson and many protestant Bible commentaries. You're trying to find some excuse why Peter isn't the Rock. Jesus spoke Aramaic - "Peter" means "Rock." You can't get around it, it's just a fact.
And still you have no given me one verse that proves sola scriptura. Don't feel bad, it can't be done. But don't start claiming that you did it either. The Bible doesn't teach sola scriptura. The Bible teaches that the Church is the pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), which you still haven't explained.
God bless,
Jay
Gentlemen, I have quoted plenty of verses supporting Sola Scriptura, and I will do so again if it still isn’t clear enough for you. Before I do however, I need to emphasize that I have certainly not said, that alone admitted that Sola Scriptura isn’t biblical. I did say that there is no place (“verse” which is what you are looking for) where it says, “The bible (cannon) alone is authoritative.” But there are many verses that speak of the Word of God as the final authority in matters of life and doctrine. Now, that is quite different from saying that Sola Scriptura is not biblical. The term “biblical” means an expression, idea, theme or concept which the bible continually emphasizes in one form or another. Although it had not been formulated as a doctrine in biblical times, Sola Scripture was and certainly is a biblical concept.
You continue to quote 1 Tim 3:16. Yes it does speak of the church being the “pillar” of truth. The NT uses many examples to describe the nature of the church. One example is Eph 2:21-22. Here Paul speaks of the church as a “building” a “household” a “temple” a “dwelling”. 1 Tim 3:16 is also Pauline. No doubt Paul had in mind the same concept when writing to Timothy.
First of all the word is "εκκλησία " (ekklesia), and it was primarily a secular word at the time. It is used three times in Acts 19, vss 32, 39, 41, translated "assembly" to talk about a secular gathering of a multitude. The word simply means "called out ones”. Of the 115 times that the word is used, 112 of them are translated church or churches. About 100 of those times it is a specific local assembly and the other times it is either the church as an institution or eschatologically. (It is never used as a universal entity, (that is completely unbiblical.) Moreover, the church is never spoken of as being the final authority on matters of life and doctrine. You cannot attach an interpretation on one or two verses (in this case one verse) while at the same time avoiding all the other verses on the topic.
You’re doing the same thing with the ‘primacy of Peter’ debate. On the one hand you accept the bible as authoritative. Then you quote the ONE verse that speaks of Peter as the rock (although the Greek word is “stone”) and then you fail to explain why the 6 passages that speak of Jesus as the Rock, don’t at all conflict with your theology. If Jesus is the Rock, how can Peter be also? Furthermore, these protestant theologians that you mention may have differing opinions regarding this verse but they most certainly do not believe in the primacy of Peter!
You quote some author’s ‘suggestions’ from the NT that supposedly supports the primacy of Peter. This is truly silly! It’s kind of like us saying that Paul should have primacy because he “wrote” more Scripture or perhaps John because he was the “beloved” disciple and so on it goes.Jay, Peter admitted that he was a sinful man (Luke 5:8). Where, along the line was Peter endowed with infallibility upon which the RCC insists upon? The Catholic Church may be able to explain it, but nowhere does the bible speak of such a thing!
Also, you tell me that I do not understand infallibility. Yet as a catholic you can quite easily accept that while the Catechism states the pope is infallible when it comes to morals (Pg. 235, #890), somehow when he commits an ‘immoral’ act which is contrary to God’s Word you disagree with it?!? Yet at the same time you still accept that he is infallible when it comes to morality?!? Or, he can “choose to be moral” when interpreting God’s Word. But when he goes against God’s Word, is he is choosing to sin? If he can “choose to be infallible”, then he can “choose to be fallible.” You either are either fallible or infallible. Only Jesus was infallible. My friend as a Catholic you were on firmer ground with this argument before Vatican 2. If I were you I would put aside my preconceived notions regarding this issue and have a real serious think about the implications of it.
Jay, I do intend to give you my answer once and for all on Sola Scriptura, but I will have to do so when I have more time. I am due to return to Vancouver tomorrow for a business trip. We will discuss this issue further when I return.
P.S. As I was browsing the archives I came across a post were you were discussing Mary as being a typological Ark of the Covenant. I have heard this mentioned before somewhere in Catholic literature, but I have not yet encountered anyone make such a bold post as you did in suggesting there was biblical evidence for such a thing. I would like to hear more about this one too.
Blessings,
Simon
Simon,
So you've started again.... ; )
So you begin your last comment:
And then after your lengthy, but true to form, thesis on the meaning of the word "biblical" (it makes it easier for you I guess) you conclude:
Again....true to form. Will you ever prove to us that Sola Scriptura is "biblical" and yes we want verses, we've provided you verses supporting the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth".
By the way...about the Church being referred to in a universal sense, try Matthew 16:18. Jesus states clearly that He will build His Church...that's pretty universal.
In Christ,
Joe
On a personal note, I have always been intrigued that protestants have never considered the number of books they have in their bible after Luther changed the bible - a total of 66 remains. This is striking to me considering that biblically speaking the number 6 is associated with the mark of the beast 666. It's funny how when we deviate from God's plan, we can be so blind as to overlook simple facts as this one.
Simon,
In your comment above you ask the question can non-Catholics be Christians? Then you proceed to quote the catechism of the Catholic Church. "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." pg. 216 #818 Then in your own personal words you state: "In other words, if you have not been baptized into the Catholic Church you are not a Christian. These are not my words, but the words of the official Catholic Catechism."
However, Simon even though you claim these are not your words but the catechism's, you lie. They are precisely your words. The Church never makes such a statement and in fact the quote you use from the catechism says just the opposite. "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism...have a right to be called Christians..." Where does it say this baptism only comes from the Catholic Church? I fail to see your point in using this quote from the catechism, if anything it shows a great error in your argument.
The section you are referring to in the catechism is about wounds to unity. For Christ calls the Church to be one as He and His Father are one so the Church is addressing the current state of disunity and how we as Catholics view this disunity. The Catechism acknowledges that men of both sides were to blame for the disunity. It even goes further to state that the Catholic Church accepts these separated brothers with respect and affection. Then it ends the section with a beautiful statement referring to protestant denominations - "Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church." pg.216 #819
Why would the Catholic Church call these churches means of salvation if we didn't think you were Christian? Simon do you think we as Catholics are Christian? Do you think we can receive salvation as Catholics?
Simon,
You're reaching. Over and over you attempt to get around what Jesus taught by suggesting alternative interpretations that might be what God had in mind.
You say the word "church" is meant to refer to an "assembly" and yet that assembly is the "pillar of Truth" according to Paul in 1 Tim 3:15. Are you suggesting that every assembly contains all truth? I hope not, that's ridiculous. The Bible clearly lays out the foundations for the Church - something Jesus did while on earth. You can work diligently to find some crazy way of watering down Jesus' words, but it is still clear that He founded a Church and that Church is the "pillar of Truth." You, Simon, have to decide which Church that is. I recommend you read this article as well and explain to me how these 50 proofs aren't obvious. The Bible is clear for those who read it with an open mind. You have preconceived notions of what you want the Bible to say, so you're going in circles to explain away Jesus' words and trying to find your interpretation hidden in Scripture.
By the way, the "Word of God" is spoken and written. Sorry to blow that idea out of the water.
God bless,
Jay
Simon,
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and other Protestant Reformation ideas are examples of history looking backwards, i.e. history taken out of its historical context.
Scripture, in its written form, was not available to the common man until the inventions of the pre-reformative years. I.E. the Gutenberg Press, etc. You also presuppose the fact of the limited access of the common man to paper in the Middle East at the time of the writing of the various Gospels and epistles. Not to mention the illiteracy ratio then, most people didn't even know how to read! A fact that remained true under last century! So how are people to discern the Bible and what God wants from them if they can't even read! This requires just a faction of simple reason to see that the basis for Sola Scriptura, in addition to being not biblical, is absolutely illogical.
With a limited amount of historical research, most 9th and 10th graders could complete this research at any public library. It is made apparent that the early Christian Church was one developed upon oral traditions. The Scriptures, which form its core, did not begin to take written form until 100-200 years after Christ's death.
The torch of the early Christians was the preaching of its Magisterium - "The Church" - men like St. Stephen the Martyr, Peter the Apostle who died in Rome while carrying the "keys of the kingdom" with his preaching - "orally" - the Word of God. Many early Christians died as martyrs not for the words they wrote but for the words they spoke.
Just think about it, the early Church was composed primarily of illiterate farmers and fishermen whose words were later written down by the men who were inspired by the lives they lived following Christ to the ultimate sacrifice, dying for their fellow men, the sins of the world, and their faith in God who had come to save them with his spoken Word, Jesus Christ.
We are all Christians who seek to follow the path of Christ but realize that God gave us the Bible as a tool to help us in this walk. It is not the only bulwark upon which we can build our faith. This we find in the Bible, but more importantly it is rational and we can discern this with our own minds. Sola Scriptura simply doesn't make sense...
God never simply provided His people with a "book" stating this is all that you need to discern what I want of you. And He doesn't do it in our present day either. In the Old Testament, he spoke through his prophets and kings, today he speaks to us through His Church.
In Christ,
Joe
Maria, Maria. You are revealing your lack of knowledge not only of the bible, but of your own doctrine as well. You said, “biblically speaking the number 6 is associated with the mark of the beast 666.” This doesn’t seem like a very scholarly conclusion to the 66 books debate. I would be interested to see how your logic reaches this point. I am even more interested to see some verses supporting your view.
Maria. You are either very unclear on what the Catechism states or you simply do not understand basic catholic theology. If you are confused by it all I don’t blame you. It is a confusing and very contradictory set of teachings. If you say that you are not confused, your own statements today provide proof to the contrary. Let us examine a few.
In a former post (you will remember which one) you appeared to be very convinced that neither the Catholic Church nor the Catechism stated or ever suggested that Catholics could not interpret the bible for themselves. For a moment there I thought you were having me on. But I was even more concerned when I discovered that you were actually serious. Ok let us again look at what the Catechism says, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone (pg 27 #85). And again, "For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God." (Pg. 34, #119). And yet again, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Pg. 30, #100. I have given you three quotes. Maria, I don’t think that it could be any clearer that that. As a catholic you CANNOT interpret the bible for yourself! The Catholic Church once enforced this teaching. They don’t appear to be doing that these days, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is still doctrine.
The one who is with great error here is not I Maria but you. Now let us look at your current post. First, I did not say that only baptism comes from the Catholic Church and I didn’t say that the Catechism stated that either. I did say that it teaches that only baptism conferred BY they Catholic Church is salvific.
Like you did with the argument about Scriptural Interpretation (which I have proven you wrong about twice) here you suggest that the Catechism does not say that only Catholics can be saved. Well, yes it absolutely does say this! Even your own pope reaffirms this teaching. Whether you agree with it or not, Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is available only through the Catholic church: "The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'" Pg. 215, #816 Here, the 1994 catechism reaffirms the existing teaching of Vatican II, that salvation can only be obtained through the Catholic Church. The catechism leaves no doubt that the Catholic church is necessary for salvation: "...all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation..." Pg. 224, #846
Past popes have taught this doctrine, as have previous catechisms and church fathers. Here is but one example…On May 7, 2001, Pope John Paul II told 2,000 youth gathered at the Greek-Melkite Cathedral of Damascus that "you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Church founded on Jesus Christ."1 Do you seriously think the pope was referring to a church other than the Catholic Church? I don’t think so. Maria, you personally may not believe this, but your pope does. And it is an official doctrine of your religion.
In Christ,
Simon
Simon,
Once again in your rebuttals, you fail to answer the questions posed directly to you. First of all I did not demonstrate my lack of knowledge regarding scripture by my one random comment regarding the books of the bible. Perhaps I get my fascination with numbers from my father, but it is true that throughout the bible various numbers have significant meaning. Some numbers denote good and holy things while others evil. For example the 12 Tribes of Israel, the 12 apostles, 3 representing the Trinity, forgive them 70 x 7, etc. While the number 6 in any sequence be it 66 or 666 has always been associated with evil for whatever reason I don't know but it has. So I (Me, Simon, not Catholic doctrine or a verse from the bible) find it very, very intriguing that our complete bible, the original bible has a total number of 73 books, that Luther removed 7 books, and that Protestants bible contain a total number of 66 books. It's just my personal observation, nothing more, nothing less.
Secondly, Simon I do not remember the first post you were referring to about what I said. What article was it under? Are you sure you do not have me confused with Krista?
Thirdly, regarding my post directed to you underneath this article, I think you need to read it again word for word and read your post as well. I quoted you word for word and in your response to me you change your words. And please reference the page number in the catechism which states what you said, "...that only baptism conferred BY they (I think you meant to type the) Catholic Church is salvific."
Simon, if you keep reading the catechism quote pg.224 #846-848, you will read that yes, salvation can be obtained outside the Church. By stating the Church is necessary for our salvation the catechism further explains this to mean "...the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." pg.224 #846
For example, you do not believe (even though we have tried to show you this) that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ so you can Simon find salvation outside the Church as further stated in the catechism:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."
Also in quoting the catechism pg.215 #816 you fail to see one key phrase: "..that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained." It does not say the "only" means of salvation but the "fullness" and the Church is right about this. We, as Catholics, have the "fullness" of faith and therefore the "fullness" of the means of salvation can be obtained only through the Church. As protestants you do have means to salvation justified in faith by Baptism, you just do not possess the fullness of this means.
So I ask you again Simon, do you believe Catholics are Christians? Do you believe we as Catholics can recieve salvation?
Maria,
First, I agree that certain numbers have meaning in the bible, but be careful not to make too much or it. You said “the number 66 or 666 in any sequence has always been associated with evil, I don’t know how but it has.” Well let me give you some advice. If you can’t explain something (especially an elusive concept as this) it’s not a good idea to just accept it as truth. The number 666 is associated with the mark of the beast. To my knowledge the number 6 means absolutely nothing in the bible.
Second, nowhere did I say that the catechism specifically states that only baptism through the Catholic Church is salvific. But several of your former popes said it and enforced it.
Read a little more catholic history and you would realize that this as a fact. Just put two and two together. The catechism states that salvation only comes through the Catholic Church; elsewhere it states that baptism is essential for salvation. So it’s not that hard to surmise that Catholic doctrine teaches that only baptism conferred by the Catholic Church is binding for salvation.
I will make this brief. You are apparently still confused by your own doctrine. You go to great lengths to show me how I have missed the point of your argument. You try to show me that salvation is available outside the church. You said, “The Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ so you can Simon find salvation outside the Church.” OUTSIDE the Church?” Maria you have got to be kidding me! Do you seriously believe that Catholicism teaches a way of salvation outside of Catholicism? You confuse your own argument even further by agreeing that salvation only comes through the Catholic Church, however, you slightly alter it by using the word “fullness.” Well you have confirmed my point exactly. Since Vatican 2 Catholicism has become a lot more “conciliatory” in its approach. But that doesn’t mean that its teaching has changed. No one is half saved. That would just nullify the whole purpose of salvation. A person is either saved or unsaved.
Maria, the entire plethora of catholic doctrine is directed toward making sure people get evangelized by Catholics because (1 only Catholics have “the Truth” and (2 only through hearing and abiding in and by the truth taught by Catholicism can a person be saved. Even your own board members such as Jay and Joe frequently confirm this view.
Now I will answer your last question. Bear with me for a moment. Dearest Maria, I believe that anyone can be saved—“fully” saved. “Therefore he (Jesus) is able to save “completely” those who come to God through him (Jesus) Hebrews 7:25. Completely means “fully”. Because it is a gift of God we receive through faith. Eph 2:8 “For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works so that no one can boast.” A person doesn’t get half saved. There is no “process” of salvation. We don’t have to work for it. There is nothing more to do because Jesus did it all on Calvary Colossians 2:13-15. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man. Not Mary or any saint. We have been made holy by the blood of Jesus sacrificed “once for all” (Heb 10:10). The phrase “once for all” is repeated in whole or in part more than 10 times in Hebrews. The sacrifice of Christ “once for all” is always associated with the “once and for all” act of redemption. “But when he had offered “for all time” one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:12). Jesus forgives sins. Not the pope or a priest—Jesus intercedes—Jesus purifies.
Dearest Maria, the bible says that “anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:32, Romans 10:13). Maria, if you have “confessed with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believed in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you WILL be saved (Rom 10:9). Perhaps you have committed you life to Christ as the Scriptures suggest. If you have done so, I believe you are saved.
Maria, I will share a little with you about my own Christian experience. The beautiful and liberating reality of my walk with Jesus is this: I have complete and total assurance of my salvation. I don’t have to work for my salvation. I am already saved—any work that I do for the Lord is in response to his awesome love in what he has done for me. Despite how often I am disobedient—despite how often I grieve my Lord, I am forever free from condemnation (Romans 8:1). I am still a sinner. I have been saved from the penalty of sin. However my sinful nature is still within me. But praise be to God I have been freed from the power of sin. No longer can sin control me. No longer do I fear the future. I am not concerned about life or death. For I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live but he lives in me (Galatians 2:20). In all circumstances the grace of Christ is sufficient for me (2 Corinthians 12:8). Praise the Lord!
Maria, anyone can be saved. It is by grace and grace alone. All our good deeds are as filthy rags. We are helpless. We are powerless to do anything to please God. The only one capable of pleasing God, of withholding God’s wrath from consuming us is Jesus—and he made atonement for us by shedding his blood on Calvary. Praise be to him. Maria, I may not ever meet you in this life. But I hope and pray that I will meet you in the life to come. I pray that on that day we will together sing, “Worthy is the Lamb to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise (Rev 5:12)”
Finally, Dear Maria, I wish you all the grace and peace of Christ this Christmas. If I have been condescending toward you in any way I apologize. If I have spoken of catholic belief in any way that could be deemed inappropriate I also apologize. I wish to extend the hand of friendship and fellowship to all Catholics especially Jay and Joe. We may disagree on many things. But let us agree to make Jesus Lord of our lives this Christmas. May all of you know the deeper and richer love of Christ. I believe the Lord would have me encourage all of you with this verse:
“And I pray that you being rooted and established in love, may have power together with all the saints to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we could ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever and ever! Amen (Eph 3:17b-20)”.
The Lord Bless you all
Simon
Sola Scriptura
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. John 21:25
Although God’s word has never stated that the place and position in the church of Jesus Christ today of Apostles, prophets and gifts of the Spirit including miracles, healing and tongues has ceased because the church has not ceased, fallible false men have dispensed with such things. Then these same fallible men or church fathers (The Romans Church sees the Fathers as the successors of the apostles, the closest source to the apostolic teaching and tradition, and therefore authoritative) canonized the scriptures and they became what we know as the bible. (Mind you the Protestant Bible has fewer books than the Catholic Bible.)
For some Christians the Church Fathers are a wonderful source of rich and rewarding material. But they cannot be read uncritically. It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and gnostic error found their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers were not free from such influences. Moreover, the next three centuries were a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another. Yet these men canonized the infallible scriptures and we can trust them with our lives? (Mind you while Jesus taught us to trust the Old Testament Scriptures and the person of the Holy Spirit, He never told us to trust the New Testament or that He would cause one to be written?)
Sola Scriptura is Latin for "Scripture alone" or "only Scripture." The doctrine carries with it approximately two connotations. First, by way imposing the least controversial feature, it is that the Bible is materially sufficient (totum in Scriptura) for guiding all matters of doctrine and religious practice. The doctrine of sola Scriptura suggests that the Scriptures are formally sufficient. The Bible serves as the (i) exclusive source of infallible doctrinal material, and (ii) the sufficient source of infallible doctrinal material. At this point it is incumbent upon me to qualify this definition so that no misunderstanding will result. Sola Scriptura is temporally contingent in that it is a post-Apostolic doctrine following the era of inscripturation. (3)
The Bible affirms that Scripture is the sufficient and exclusive source of infallible doctrinal material.
(a) In the much celebrated passage in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we find the Apostle Paul's dynamic words to Timothy about the nature of written revelation:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NIV).
Catholics and Protestants all agree that the Scriptures are theopneustos or "God-breathed." This gives divine significance to the Apostolic message. But there are two extremes about Scriptures in Christianity. The Protestant Church today is a book-worshipper. It makes a fetish out of a book. The Catholics are little for the Bible, and ever have. They say, "Take away the whole book if you like, and the church will still remain in all its power. The book is the creation of the church, not the church the creation of the book." The Protestants, finding themselves confronted with an infallible church, had to oppose it with an infallible book. And they made a book infallible, which before had not been considered so. And well they might for they were compelled to. It is commonly the case that the overthrow of one superstition is only accomplished by the establishment of another in its place.
The Catholics had the prestige of antiquity, and of being considered the only true Church of God, and they threatened with eternal damnation every man who followed Luther. The masses of the people of the North, ignorant and superstitious, were naturally terrified by the awful threat, and the only wonder is that they ever challenged this religious juggernaut. To meet the challenge, Luther, Calvin, and others said that the Bible was "supernaturally inspired." The origin of the books having been forgotten, men, credulous and in trouble, came to think that because the books were written of God they were written by God. The reformers declared that the Bible and not the church was the sole source of authority. This succeeded, and the decrees of the Vatican were answered by such reasoning by the Protestants. The doctrine of the divine and infallible inspiration of the New Testament spread as did the military advances through Europe. Hence we had the following ridiculous decree, adopted by the Calvinistic council of Switzerland in 1675 A. D.:
"Almighty God not only provided that His word, which is the power of every one who believes, should be committed to writing through Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles, but also has watched over it with a fatherly care up to the present time, and guarded it lest it might be corrupted by the craft of Satan or any fraud of men...The Hebrew volume of the Old Testament, which we have received from tradition of the Jewish church, to which formerly the oracles of God were committed, and retain at the present day, both in its contents and in its vowels, the points themselves, or at least the force of the points, and both in its substance and its words is divinely inspired, so that, together with the volume of the New Testament, is the single and uncorrupted rule of our faith and life, by whose standard, as by a touchstone, all versions which exist, whether Eastern or Western, must be tried, and whenever they vary, be made conformable to it" (Neimeyer, Collection Confessionum, p. 730).
But nothing could be further from the truth for we have three things indicate the grim ferocity of this dogma:
1. It says the God has guarded the Bible from corruption; yet Griesbach collected one hundred and fifty thousand various readings in the New Testament manuscripts alone (B. A. Hinsdale, M.A., Genuineness and Authenticity of the Gospels, Cincinnati, 1872 ,p. 130), the greater part of which must, of course, be corruptions, since there can be but one correct reading for any passage.
2. It says the vowels were inspired, whereas the ancient Hebrew literature had no vowels.
3. It says that the vowel-points were inspired; whereas they did not come into use until the seventh century after Jesus, and were not perfected until four centuries later. This last article is a relic of that ancient belief that the translators, the copyists, and all the men who had aught to do with the transmission of the Bible from century to century, were inspired.
One of the main problems with man is that he does not read nor know the Word of God. Then when he does read it, he does not allow the Holy Spirit to teach and show them the true meaning and truths in the word of God. Rather he leans to the presumed half truths that others have taught him and which do not work any way when tested in the fires of life. Only the Holy Spirit who is the author, inspirer and interpreter of the Word of God is the one who is capable for revealing truth and its true meaning. With out the Holy Spirit insights it’s not only a waste of time to interpret the word but extremely dangerous. For as any good navigator knows off reading charts, an inch off on the chart could have disastrous results and end up being miles off. Jesus clearly stated that He would send the Spirit of truth to His own:
"If you love Me, keep My commandments. "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." John 14:15-21
For those who truly love Jesus and keep His words and commandments, the Father would give another Helper the Spirit of truth who will abide with them for ever and He will love them. For those who would abide in Him, Jesus would also love them and manifest Himself to them and by the Holy Spirit He will talk to them and tell them of things to come. God’s word records:
"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. John 16;13-15
The Holy Spirit would make the Word of God real to God’s people so that what Jesus said would be true:
But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' Matthew 4:4
Man is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God and made real by the Holy Spirit. It must be a Rhema word and not just a logos word. So that the Word of God will be fulfilled:
"Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. "And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the LORD your God:
"Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. "Blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. "Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. "Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.
"The LORD will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways. "The LORD will command the blessing on you in your storehouses and in all to which you set your hand, and He will bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
"The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, just as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. "Then all peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they shall be afraid of you. Deuteronomy 28:1-10
Question for anyone, (if there is anyone that is still in this discussion).
It seems like everyone agrees that at least until the Council of Hipo, the 'Church' as it had developed up until that point, was the true Church if she was able to take the 'God Breathed' Word, and collect it for the Bible.
If the Catholic Church is not the true church, when did she lose it? I have heard people talk about the Church losing Apostolic succession when the church went underground in Rome… was the Council of Hipo before or after that?
Is there a true Church? How do we become a member if so many disagree about what is required of us? I hear people talk about ‘Once saved always save’, but doesn’t the Bible say that none of us know whom will be saved until the last day? ..or only that the Father knows who will be saved? People talk about how no principality can take someone’s salvation, but does that exclude someone giving up their own salvation? If, once someone is saved, they cannot give up their salvation, what happened to freedom of choice?
I have an ex-Father in Law that is a Southern Baptist Fundamentalist, and he has answers to these questions, but they are not compelling. Thanks to anyone that can help me with these questions.
Michael
Hi Michael, well, looks like everyone has abandoned thier posts!..I think we can(give up our salvation) and God respects our freedom of choice, However, in all honesty- and in reality- i dont think when we see Him, anyone who once knew him- could actually reject him all together- maybe this is what we call "grace"--its that love which draws us and keeps us no matter sometimes the feelings of seperation we sometimes endure-(self inflicted probably- but- we feel it non the less)that love that dosent like us- but wants us anyway-?that love that becomes one with us- in us- even if sometimes here we only get a moment of it- its usually enough to let us know(!!!!) that he exists and wants better things for us- even if for some unknown or explained reason- it wont be untill we get to that otherside that we can all together embrace it---forever--non stop..!!But- Dont stop believing-----I love the Mass--the euchrist- always heals me-- but- that dosent mean its the only means God uses to heal and or to touch us-(souls)and Bodys-- hes an "awesome" to use a very popular term--God, and Father-I personally believe that in