A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[Philthy]

SS is simply untenable … I am always amazed that protestants cannot seem to see that; I guess it’s part of the Lord’s plan.

SS:

If it is so untenable I don’t understand why so many of you Catholics will not even offer a rationale refutation of it.

Oh come on - you havent seen a rationale refutation? Im not saying that you have to agree with the arguments, but to label them as non-existent or irrational is IMHO disingenous. If you want to truly understand the difficulty of arguing against sola scriptura, then hear this: it cannot be defined. sola scriptura literally means “scriture alone” but the many arguments which we have been offered are often rejected as “straw man” arguments. Sound familiar? The most simple argument against Sola Scriptura is that we have no way to establish what Scripture is and what it is not through scripture alone. The second problem is that nowhere in what we currently agree is Scripture does it say that Scripture alone is our final authority and that the authority of Scripture supercedes the authority of the Church. Those are two rational and fundamental flaws of Sola Scriptura as I understand it.
ss:

Most of what I hear is the crackling of straw burning as you all torch the strawman, or just the condescension about how untenable it is without offering an argument to prove what you are asserting. This is getting old and tiring.

The lack of a comprehensive, authotitative definition of Sola Scriptura - a term not found in Sacred Scripture - which is consistent throughout the history of it’s use is the problem. What you consider a “straw man” is simply the refutation of what another, equally authoratative Protestant has put forward as their understanding of what Sola Scriptura means. Your remedy, no doubt, will be to define your personal understanding of what sola scriptura means - unauthoritatively and apart from Scripture - for us all to accept as the truth. We will argue against it and incorporate those arguments into the next discussion of Sola Scriptura with another Protestant who will hear our arguments against your definition and subsequently label our arguments as - you guessed it! - straw man arguments against sola scriptura based on his personal, unauthoritative understanding of the doctrine. You tell me how that is rational.

lasalle:

Hi SS

I’m gonna just jump in here …
Catholics believe that the bible is from God because the Church said it is so.*
SS:

Yes, but how do you know who or what the Church is without the Bible?

This is a classic example of putting the cart (Scripture) before the horse (Church) We know - or have the certainty of reason together with faith to know it because the Church (ie the Apostles) walked and taught with Christ - they were living, breathing individuals who one could question and interact with. How did people know Christ from the other two criminals crucified? By the testimony of those same witnesses. They gave others the authority to do the unique things that they were uniquely comissioned and empowered by the holy Spirit to do - and they did it for all to see. The succession of the individuals who recieved these gifts is a matter of historical record - again for all to see. That is how we know the Church apart from the Bible. And how is it, exactly, that you personally have a knowledge of what writings are Sacred Scripture?
SS:

Don’t answer with Tradition, because the next question is how do you know what Tradition is without the Bible? Seems like you have a tight circle yourself.

You see dont see the “tight circle” of the “bible” - whatever that means - being self authenticating and the dispenser of all Christian truth? Let me ask you a question: did John the Baptizer know who his parents were? If so, how did he know it? He knew it by the living testimony of witnesses. That is the same standard we use as Catholics: unbroken succession of living witnesses. Rational and coherent.

 

[jacobaer]

Sola,

Wwwhhhooopppiiiee!

Thanks,
Jacobaer

 

[Philthy]

If I were debating someone who didn’t believe the Scriptures were the word of God then this would be a completely different debate. Being that we both agree the Scriptures are the word of God it is not begging the question.

No its not begging the question. The authority which God chose to record, reveal and preserve Sacred Scripture through (ie the Church) also precedes those Scriptures and has a inherent authority apart from them which existed before Scripture and remains in full force.
SS:

But how do you know the Catholic Church is who it says it is?Because it says so?

By faith, history and reason - which is overwhelming compared to your foundation for believing that the “Bible” is inspired by God.
SS:

Isn’t that begging the question? You can’t say you believe it because the Bible says so, because it is the Church that tells you what the Bible is.

We believe the testimony of eyewitnesses passed down through the generations which history confirms. Im still waiting to hear what you have as “evidence” for the claim that the Bible is inspired.
You can’t say you believe it be Tradition is the truth?
What did you mean to say here?

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Jacobaer, I’m not following your argument. Scripture itself says it is God’s word, so that is the authority. Maybe I’m missing your point, but your refutation is not making any sense as I read it.

Here is your original statement that I am challenging:

“It logically follows that if Scripture is God speaking there is not higher source, right? At best there can be an equal source, but not a higher, right? Therefore, God speaking judges all other things that are not its equal. If you think you have another source that is equal to God’s speaking then the onus is on you to prove this. Otherwise this point stands.”

When you say, “It logically follows…” you are stepping outside the realm of “God speaking” and into the realm of “you interpreting.” You’ve stepped outside Scripture and made an authoritative statement ABOUT Scripture. THEN you appealed to Scripture, specifically, the verse in 2 Timothy 3.

Well, this is true for all of us. Do you think you escape using your logic to determine Rome is who she says she is? Don’t you have to use your logic and reasoning to determine if she is right or wrong.

Now, in your response to me, you make the appeal to Scripture first*…”Scripture itself says it is God’s word”*…then you add your extra-Scriptural statement…”so that is the authority.”

Let’s take a closer look at your statement.

“Scripture itself says it is God’s word…” – I can agree with you there. Scripture DOES say that.
“…so that is the authority.” – Now, it DOES NOT say that. YOU are saying that. “God speaking” is most certainly authoritative. But THE authority? YOU are saying that.

So now you are still left standing at the corner of “God speaking” and “you interpreting.”

As I have pointed out too many times on these boards already, sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that there can be no authority outside of the Scriptures. Furthermore, we always have to interpret and the same is true for you and every other Catholic with your infallible rule of faith. Don’t you interpret your source’s claim when it says it is infallible?

Your appeal to Sola Scriptura as a doctrine is based on a Scriptural statement AND your extra-Scriptural statement about its authority. In essence, you’ve added your authoritative statement to Scripture to buttress your argument about Sola Scriptura.

Not only is your argument self-refuting against your own system, but it is also based on a misunderstanding of sola Scriptura. If you read my response to jemfinch above when he proposed 6 or 7 defintions you would see that I reject this caricature.

Let me put it another way: You are saying, “Scripture alone is the only authority in spiritual matters because it says so and I say so.”

No matter how you look at it, you’ve put yourself into the equation as an authority. You expect us to believe Sola Scriptura NOT ONLY because Scripture says it is God speaking. You expect us to believe it because YOU SAY that this makes it THE only authority.

Do you see it now?

Yeah, I see it and it is a bad argument. Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean one doesn’t adhere to normal rules of logic. Therefore, it follows if God is who the Scriptures say He is then He is an authority and therefore so is His word.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[kbmorri]

… continued from previous post
Wow! I’ve been following this for a little while now and it is very exhausting. I’m not a very educated man nor do I think as fast as you or anybody else on this post for that matter. I’d have to say the majority of Catholics like myself have this same problem so when arguments like these come up we are overwhelmed with opinions and “facts”. I a simple man,& have to rely on faith and what is reasonable to me. I can’t believe in a church that has so many denominations and claim that it is the TRUE church. The Catholic church is one of a kind and infallible. because it started with Jesus Christ himself! NOT from the reformation, making up what rules they want to apply so they seem reasonable.
Yes, just like a number of churches claim they are the true church, but you reject those.

An external source can bring much important information to the table, because they are reporting on historical events. For example, and external source corroborate that much of the historical information that is in the Scriptures. They could corroborate that the individuals mentioned actual live during that time. They could corroborate that Jesus was crucified and his body turned up missing and the tomb is empty. Likewise external sources could demonstrate claims are wrong and disqualify a source from being considered inspired.

Only the most naïve Protestant would deny there is a tradition. So I don’t implicitly accept the claim of the Catholic Church, but I explicitly accept the historical record! Reformational Protestants have never had a problem with tradition, we only have a problem with putting that tradition on the same par as infallible Scripture.

Well, if it was illogical it wouldn’t be reasonable, but that is neither here nor there either. I don’t deny God preserve His church, just like He preserves the OT church. However, He didn’t need to grant the OT church infallibility to preserve so neither does he need to grant infallibility to the Christian church to preserve it.

Yes you can. I was giving my reasons for believing in the canon. I was not listing them as if you could use the same argument. Furthermore, you are still talking about sola Scriptura whereas this post was dealing with the canon.

What Christian doesn’t believe it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding them? To deny that is to essentially deny you are Christian. So it is definitely not misplaced, that is where my assurance should be placed, that is in God.

Baloney. All you need to know is who the authors of the works are and if they are inspired or the inspired authors could tell you what is inspired, so the one compiling the canon does not necessarily need direct special revelation to do so. As a matter of fact the Jews during Jesus knew what the Scriptures were without their institution being infallible.

 

[Philthy]

I believe it based on a number of reasons such as:

1. 
   *]Based on internal witness
   *]Based on external witness
   *]Based on history( and yes, I even take the church fathers testimony into account )
   *]Based on the fact of Jesus Christ resurrection, which vindicated everything he said and it logically follows if he was God He would preserve His revelation.
   *]The work of the Holy Spirit in my heart

1. 
   Item 1 is not a term I am familiar with, but it sounds like a personal revelation to me - is that what you meant? Yes or No please. If so, I want to hear your personal testimony that this internal witness revealed to you, personally, the exact canon Scripture. If not, please explain exactly what you mean by “internal witness” and how anyone except yourself can- in good conscience - use such a revelation as God inspired .
   Item 2 is equally vague - please explain - including why items 2 and 3 are not equivalent.
   Item 3 requires some clarifications. When, historically, did the doctrine of Sola Scriptura appear?
   Item 4 is completely arbitrary personal opinion. Not only is there nothing biblically to support it, but it hasnt even happened historically. There are plenty of books out there claiming to be God’s revelation and there is no way to distinguish them apart from a living witness to the truth.
   Item 5 seems to be a repetition of Item 1, or ,possibly, simply your confusion of two separate issues: What is the canon of Sacred Scripture? and Is the Holy Spirit active in my life? Regardless of which it is, it is unclear to the rest of us how it is to be of use to anyone other than yourself. Unless, of course you consider yourself a public witness to the authenticity of Sacred Scripture based on personal revelation. Do you beleive you are a public witness ordained by the holy Spirit to testify to the authenticity of Sacred Scripture based upon your personal revelation? Yes or No, pleae. If not then Item 5 cannot be offered to the general public unless you are claiming that God will reveal the canon of Sacred Scripture to all who request it. Do you believe that? Yes or No, please.
   And while we are on this topic of internal witnessing of the holy Spirit - like Luther (who proposed a different canon than you) claimed - has this spirit been tested at all? I mean if I were to present you with 100 verses 99 of which were from the Protestant OT and 1 of which was from, say, Sirach would you be able to identify which verse was not inspired by God through this Spirit? What da ya think?

 

[jacobaer]

Hi Sola,

I said: “When you say, “It logically follows…” you are stepping outside the realm of “God speaking” and into the realm of “you interpreting.” You’ve stepped outside Scripture and made an authoritative statement ABOUT Scripture. THEN you appealed to Scripture, specifically, the verse in 2 Timothy 3.”
*You responded: “*Well, this is true for all of us. Do you think you escape using your logic to determine Rome is who she says she is? Don’t you have to use your logic and reasoning to determine if she is right or wrong.”

ME: Sola, you are the one who has to use logic in order to make your doctrine work. We Catholic Christians acknowledge that there is an authority outside Scripture that can bind our conscience in faith and morals. YOU are the one who denies this and tells us that only Scripture can bind our conscience. Yet, you have to go outside Scripture in order to make Sola Scriptura work. Your argument is self-defeating on its face.

You said: “As I have pointed out too many times on these boards already, sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that there can be no authority outside of the Scriptures.”

ME: Well, as others have pointed out, what Sola Scriptura means or doesn’t mean seems to depend on who you are reading or speaking to.

For instance, does SS mean that I can ONLY believe and practice what I find in Scripture? I think the Plymouth Brethren hold to this strict interpretation of SS. Or can I believe and practice something that isn’t found in Scripture but is not contradicted by Scripture? For instance, asking the saints in heaven to pray for me. This is not contradicted by ANYTHING in Scripture.

You said: “Furthermore, we always have to interpret and the same is true for you and every other Catholic with your infallible rule of faith.”

ME: Isn’t that strange? God gives us an infallible book but leaves it up to us fallible humans to interpret it for ourselves. Is that what you think God has left for His people, an infallible book but no infallible way of interpreting it and determining the truth?

I’ll stop for now. I don’t want you to get exhausted handling all these posts like Burt Lancaster battling the pirates in a swashbuckler.

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[RNRobert]

Not necessary for Sola Scriptura to be true. Sola Scriptura presupposes you have Scripture. This question is more of an issue with recognizing the canon.

I will grant that. However, the question remains. If the Bible is to be our sole rule of faith, how do we know that the Bible we have is in fact, THE bible? Jesus did not write a word of Scripture (heck, the Church was in existence for a decade or so before any of the NT was even written), nor did the Apostles tell us which books constituted the New Testament, and the formation of the NT canon didn’t even begin until all of the Apostles were dead and buried… So, how do we know that the canon we have is valid (unless of course we prescribe to the “fallible canon” theory as some Protestants do, which to me brings the mind of a man sawing off a branch while he sits on it).

Funny thing. Years ago when I first became a Christian, I bought a Protestant NT study Bible. In it was a chapter titled “No Loose Canons” which explained that the NT was formed “By Christians who carefully weighed each book to make sure it belonged” or words to that effect. The funny thing is: I never asked myself “Who were these Christians?” or “What authority did they have to say what was Scripture and what was not?” Had I asked myself that question then, I would have become Catholic a heluva lot sooner!

If the proponents of Sola Scriptura actually were consistent in what they taught, it would make a compelling case for that doctrine. But, since they can’t and don’t, I’ll pass.

Which brings me to another question: If two denominations using Sola Scriptura teach opposing doctrines, how am I, using nothing but the Bible, determine which one is the correct one and which is in error?

Take for instance Baptism. Some churches claim that baptism is necessary, other that it is not. Some churches claim the Bible teaches we must baptise in “the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” while others are equally adamant that Scripture teaches the only valid baptism is “baptising in the name of Jesus.” Is immersion the only valid method of baptism, according to Scripture? Yes, say some Christians. No, says others. (I guess this is the “one baptism” mentioned by Paul in Ephesians 4;5).

Or the nature of Jesus: “He’s God.” “No, he’s a Man.” “No he’s an angel.”

How about the number of persons in the Godhead? Some say three, others say only one.

Scripture says salvation is due to free will. No, Scripture clearly indicates that God predestines some to heaven, others to burn in hell, we have no choice whatsoever.

Most Christian organizations worship on Sunday. But the Seventh Day Adventists claim worshipping on that day of the week is the Mark of the Beast, you gotta worship on the Jewish Sabbath if you’re a true believer, and they claim this is what the Bible teaches.

On and on and on, ad infinitem et nausem. All these groups use the same Scripture to teach opposing views. So, please tell me, how am I, using Scipture alone, to determine which doctrines are the truth and which are error?

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Sola,

Would you be a Christian without the Bible?

Pete

 

[Atreyu]

Hi Sola. I’m sympathetic to your struggle to reply to absolutely everyone in this thread, and so I think it’s time for me to bow out of the discussion and so hopefully give you a little bit less to respond to. I’ll reply to a few of your comments, but I’ll try my best not to add something new to the discussion.

And after this long complicated chain of evaluating complicated historical documents that are multifaceted, and you still haven’t read them all. As a matter of fact you have probably read less than 1% of them. You do all of this via private judgment and you think you are in a superior position to Protestants in reference to your assurance of the canon? This is pretty remarkable if you ask me. I could critique each one of your arguments in the chain. For example, Augustine is clear that he doesn’t believe in an infallible Bishop(i.e. Pope ) or infallible councils. He only believes God is infallible and His inspired word. So it is obvious you didn’t read carefully. But there is no need to critique each of your points, because the cumulative effect of your private reasoning and yourself as an authority to make all these decisions should be enough to give you a pause before chiding Protestants.

If you’d said “read much less than 1% of them”, then this would probably be closer to the truth! My point was, that we have witnesses to the truth that are not dependant on the validity of the Church, and this is explained better by Philthy above.

As for Augustine, it amazes me that anyone can read his works and come to any conclusion other than the fact that he was a faithful Catholic in submission to the bishop of Rome! Obviously people do come to this conclusion, and I’m not adding anything to the argument here simply because this topic is so far off-topic that it would need another thread to really discuss it

As for private judgement, yes I do think that everyone in the world needs to use private judgement: it is inescapable. Does this contradict the verse that Catholics love to use from the letter of Peter (I can’t remember which one, but I’m sure you know what I’m talking about)? Again, I think this is the topic for another thread. But let’s just think about it this way: you and I both believe in an objective Truth, I hope. So long as our private judgement leads us to these objective Truths, then we’re doing well. If they do not lead us to these objective Truths, then we’re not doing so well. We are only capable of coming to understand these objective Truths with the grace of God. For a Catholic, so long as our private judgement is in accord with the objective Truths that the Catholic Church has proclaimed as being known by divine revelation, then a Catholic is OK (of course, this is assuming the Catholic Church is who she says she is). And so I’m pretty happy to say that a Catholic can use private judgement - in fact must use private judgement - in evaluating and discerning the objective Truth.

No, it is not circular, but it shouldn’t bring you any assurance, unless you think much to highly of your own private judgment and authority.

Awesome. My goal in my previous post was to attempt to show that my reasoning was not circular - it’s just full of holes! It seems to me that you’ve conceded this, so I’m happy. The thing is, it didn’t take me reading and studying each and every witness that exists to discern that the Catholic Church is who she says she is - it only took a fraction of the full amount. When I was trying to discern if the Catholic Church was the same Church started by Jesus, I looked at all of these objections against the Church - including in particular, objections that Augustine taught this thing which is contrary to the Church or Augustine taught that. Then I would look at the counter-arguments, and I was more than satisfied that the Catholic Church had the better position. This didn’t just happen once or twice, but hundreds of times! Frankly, the only objection to the Catholic Church I have come across that I find the Catholic Church does not have the better position is on the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed. I think the Greeks have the better position in this argument, but I don’t think the argument in itself disproves the claims of the Romans.

And so there came a time when I just had to say to myself that I’ve read the best objections to the Catholic Church, and the Church has passed with flying colours. Then came the realisation that it didn’t matter what the objection was, not only would I be able to find an answer for it, but it had already been answered a long, long time ago.

Sola I don’t know how successful I’ve been in not adding things to the argument. I was trying to write a post that you wouldn’t feel the need to respond to, but I think I might have failed in that, sorry. Anyway, I won’t be in the least offended if you don’t reply.

Pax.

 

[joshua_b]

I think the fundamental problem we have here is one of perception.

When Protestants are asked to define the Word of God they will inevitably answer with “Scripture” or the Bible. While Scripture certainly is the Word of God, it is an incomplete answer. Catholic teaching tells us that the definition to “Word of God” is Jesus. “In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”(I don’t know the ch./verse, and Im too lazy to look it up).

Catholics believe that the Word of God is a living Word; the Word lives through the teachings of the Church He established. Those teachings exist in three parts: Sacred Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterial teaching. Father Corapi once said that the Word of God is like the Trinity in that one part can not exist independent of the other two. Wherever one part is, the other two parts are also present by the very nature of their being. Protestants don’t understand that Catholics do not place Sacred Tradition ABOVE the Word of God…Sacred Tradition is an integral part of the Word of God. Scripture is also an integral part of the same Word, but only one part.

What perplexes me is whether or not this gap can ever be bridged…

I’m going to resubmit this thought for consideration, because I’ve been watching this spiral out of control to a point where its hard to discern any pattern of logical discussion, and I feel I’m basically watching a verbal brawl. It seems that sometimes we are all so quick (myself included) to jump to defense of our Doctrine, that we don’t stop to establish the basics first…I’m hoping to begin at the beginning and maybe gain some common ground here.

We all agree that God’s Word is infallible, and can not be contradicted. Catholics believe that the Word of God is Jesus, who is present in the Church He founded, the living magisterial teaching of that Church, and the Sacred Scriptures. I would like everyone to please slow down a minute and consider this. To Catholics, Sacred Tradition is nothing less than the unadultered teaching that Jesus handed to the Apostles, and is just as much an integral part of God’s Word as the Sacred Scriptures. To a Catholic, to violate a teaching of the Church is to violate a direct teaching of Christ, and to violate the establishment that He Himself gave us. (I’m not asking to argue for or against this, simply realize it.) All of this arguing about “authority” suggests that maybe some do not understand the Catholic Church’s official position nearly as well as they would like to believe. Ultimately the argument about Sola Scriptura (whatever the definition of that may be on any given thread) is not an argument on “authority” or “traditions of men”; it is an argument about the Word of God, or rather, what constitutes it.

That being said, let me ask a question to the non-Catholic posters here…“Is the Word of God limited to Sacred Scripture ?” I would really like to get some Protestant insight to this question.

 

[Redbandito]

And you know about the authority of the church from … the Bible? Matt 16:18? somewhat circular nes pas?

Why appeal to an authority you deem insufficiant.

Scripture is materially sufficient Kaycee. That is not the point. We know the Church has authority, because Jesus told this to the Apostles, who told it to their successors and all the way on down to this day. We see this in the early writings of the Fathers and have had this Tradition passed down to us by word of mouth. Thus, unlike the circular argument of stating the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so, we say the Church is authoritative because Jesus said so. We have this claim preserved in external writings of the Fathers. Therefore the claim is linear rather than circular. It’s a bit different of an argument in this way.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I have a problem with some protestant thinking on scripture. because they put no importance on outside witnesses. They tend to put the truth forward because it just says so. But, they can’t believe that the bible is their only source of proof since they have removed those parts they refused to believe to be true. Ether all of it (the Bible) is true because it says so or none of it is true just because it says so.

I believe it is the True Word of God. Just as I believe Jesus is the True Word of God. And with the Catholic Church we have the Bible and the Church fathers that says it is true Word of God as written. So the Complete Catholic Bible has witnesses that have declared the same things and they hold true today just as they did when the Bible was written…

 

[joshua_b]

So back to my original question…
Is the Word of God found only in Scripture, limited to the printed words of the Bible, or is the Word of God inclusive of more than simply the Scriptures ?

This isn’t a “trick question”, and it’s a very simple one, that requires nothing more than a simple answer with some insight or commentary. I firmly believe that THIS is at the heart of the great sola scriptura debate, and for all of the threads I’ve witnessed debating this topic, I have almost never seen this point addressed.

 

[SolaScriptura]

That being said, let me ask a question to the non-Catholic posters here…“Is the Word of God limited to Sacred Scripture ?” I would really like to get some Protestant insight to this question.

Sorry, I’ve been away, but I’m real busy at work and I have other projects that needed to be completed for Church this weekend. But since this is a quick let me answer.

The word of God ***was ***not limited to Scriptures. The word of God was spoken by Prophets of old, the Apostles spoke the word of God, and Jesus Christ spoke and is the word of God. However, the only sure word of God we have today is Scripture. Can you document an example of the word of God that the church has it its possession that is not in Scripture?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, I’ve been away, but I’m real busy at work and I have other projects that needed to be completed for Church this weekend. But since this is a quick let me answer.

The word of God ***was ***not limited to Scriptures. The word of God was spoken by Prophets of old, the Apostles spoke the word of God, and Jesus Christ spoke and is the word of God. However, the only sure word of God we have today is Scripture. Can you document an example of the word of God that the church has it its possession that is not in Scripture?

Your question asks us to give you an example of something that is different between Church teaching and what is contained in the Bible. This we cannot do since the Church’s teaching is based upon the Scriptures. As you already know, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient - as is evidenced by the alternative interpretations of it even among Protestants.

However, we can easily give you examples of non-Catholic teachings that are different from what the Bible teaches - *sola scriptura *and sola fide being among the most egregious examples.

In a previous posting concerning your nickname, you commented that you really should have just chosen “Sola” which would be more useful depending upon the doctrine you were defending. While you spoke in jest, the underlying reality is that you really are “alone” - just you and your Bible seeking to establish what it means and working out an understanding of salvation for yourself. This is Pelagianism.

Jesus told us “there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16). Paul said, "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

You seek to enter heaven by means other than the Church that Christ established. Jesus spoke of this when he said, “I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1) If you deny this and declare your desire to enter by Jesus, the gate, then you must find the one who holds the keys to unlock the mysteries of the Gate. Peter and his successors, the popes, who hold those keys. The scripture is plain enough on this. (cf. Mt 16:18-19)

You hold false doctrines, and by your arguments, you seek to convince others to hold them as well. Thus, you try to steal sheep from the flock of Christ. If you deny this and declare yourself to be a member of the flock of Christ, then you would do well to listen to Peter, who was charged with tending and feeding you. “Feed my sheep. Take care of my lambs. Feed my lambs.” (cf. John 21)

Finally, you may argue that you have the TRUE interpretation of the Word of God and that you seek only to save those who are following a false gospel. Are you infallible? Is your interpretation of the scripture infallible? Are you infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach us what the scriptures mean? No, I do not recognize your authority to teach us what the scriptures say. I do not recognize your voice at all, and all who hear you “will run away…because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” (John 10:5)

But I do hear echoes of distant voices; those of Arius, Marcion, Pelagius, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus, Henry VIII, Tyndale, Wesley and many others. Anyone who rejects the Church founded by Jesus Christ and led by the Holy Spirit in order to build a “better” church, participates in the sins of irreligion: heresy, schism and apostasy. Their efforts are those of mere human beings aping what God has already done. The charge of Pelagianism rests squarely on their shoulders.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi Randy,

Quick partial response.
Randy Carson:

Your question asks us to give you an example of something that is different between Church teaching and what is contained in the Bible.

No, I didn’t ask you this. Your question was based on the fact that the word of God is/was contained in more than the Scriptures. I agreed with that point, but I’m asking if your Church has any other Word of God, besides what we have in Scripture Does it?
Randy Carson:

This we cannot do since the Church’s teaching is based upon the Scriptures. As you already know, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient - as is evidenced by the alternative interpretations of it even among Protestants.

Sigh. It is ironic you speak of Protestants alternative interpretations in the same breadth when you claim the Catholic Church teaches the material sufficiency of the Bible. This is ironic because the Catholic Church has alternative interpretations on this very point. Catholics disagree over where the Scriptures are materially sufficient or not. However, we have all your novice wannabe Catholic apologists making all kinds of dogmatic statements based on your “private interpretation”. The irony is amazing.

The rest of your post is typical of what comes across on this board. It is based on caricatures and strawmen that I have long denied or refuted. It is just rhetoric and preaching to rally the troops. It was OK initially, but now since I have corrected this misconceptions I expected they would stop, but alas they continue on. So for every Catholic reading, if I ignore your posts, it is not because it is a devastating critique, but just the opposite. It is something that doesn’t deserve an answer, because I have already answered it or it is based on caricatures and strawmen.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

SS didn’t you already answer them all about a week ago? I think you’re doing a great job.

 

[mikeledes]

You are correct.

Sola Scriptura is a principle that is derived from the Scripture. Sola Scriptura does not mean every belief has to be clearly stated in the Bible, but that it can also be there by good and necessary consequence( exact phrase used by Westminster Confession of Faith )

Well, the text says more than that. In verse 15-17 it says the Holy Scriptures “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus … profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” This teaches us that Scripture is sufficient to teach you about salvation through faith in Christ. It is sufficient to teach the man of God for every good work

This text does deal with doctrine outside of conduct. How do you think it can make you wise unto salvation in Jesus Christ? That is not conduct. What do you think “profitable for teaching” means and if this a good work then Scripture equips the man you for this.

The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean it has to list every possible sin anyone could commit. As a matter of fact your rule of faith does not list every possible sin everyone could commit. Does that mean it is insufficient? Scripture is sufficient to teach us what is required for salvation and to equip the man of God for every good work, which includes teaching, instructions in righteousness, and the other things that were listed.

Hello Sola Scriptura. I took a day off for the sake of my sanity. I think we both agree that the Bible is materially sufficient and that we can learn from it the pillar and foundation of our Christian faith, God’s plan of salvation. In other words, how are we saved and by whom. You don’t need an exhaustive knowledge of the Chrisitian faith in order to become a child of God. However, God’s truth is not limited to this elementary teaching. The fact that Elijah was assumed into heaven is a truth that does not directly impact our salvation, but it is a truth nonetheless. The most elementary teachings necessary on how to be saved can be found in Scripture. But Scripture is not necessarily the sole vehicle through which all of God’s truths come down to us, particularly those truths that do not directly deal with how to become a child of God and be saved.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[joshua_b]

Sorry, I’ve been away, but I’m real busy at work and I have other projects that needed to be completed for Church this weekend. But since this is a quick let me answer.

The word of God ***was ***not limited to Scriptures. The word of God was spoken by Prophets of old, the Apostles spoke the word of God, and Jesus Christ spoke and is the word of God. However, the only sure word of God we have today is Scripture. Can you document an example of the word of God that the church has it its possession that is not in Scripture?

Okay, now we have a place to start. (I know you think this is well past start, but this whole debate seemed to trample right on past this important point.) We both accept, ultimately, that Jesus IS the Word of God, and is not limited to Scripture.

Now on to your question. In short, no there is no example of the Word that is not in Scripture, because I don’t know of a single Catholic doctrine that is not supported Scripturally. Some may be implicit, and presuppose a certain amount of existing knowledge among the intended readership of whatever book you may find allusions to whatever doctrine, but all Church teaching is found in Scripture.

That being said, the Word that we believe we have as Catholics is the magisterial teaching of the Church. Why do we, as Catholics, consider this to be the Word of God ? Because magisterial teaching is the faith handed down to the bishops, from their predecessors the Apostles. The Apostles received these teachings from Jesus directly. The magisterial teachings (also called Sacred Tradition) can not and never have changed. Disciplines and customs (small “t” traditions) can and have often changed throughout history, but doctrine can not be changed by anyone, not even the Pope. I have in the past issued several challenges on this forum to cite one single example of Catholic doctrine ever changing and no one has been able to meet the challenge yet.

How do we know that the Church is not teaching error ? Because Jesus promised us the protection of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps Protestants misunderstand papal infallability…papal infallability is not the guarantee that the bishop of Rome will be perfect, but rather that God will prevent the bishop of Rome from ever being able to teach error in matters of faith and morals. If you study the history on this, it has nothing to do with God guaranteeing that the pope will be a holy man, but rather that when a pope is less than holy, and tries to corrupt unchangable doctrine,God will intervene to prevent error from being taught. There are numerous examples of this historically, but thats another thread altogether.