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

[Randy_Carson]

OK Randy, focus like a laser and answer these questions for me.

• What is the official Catholic position on the inerrancy of Scripture?
• What is the official Catholic position on the material sufficiency of Scripture?
• What is the official Catholic position on predestination, Thomist, Molinist, or something else?
• What is the official Catholic position on when the Popes have spoken ex Cathedra?

One at a time, and we’ll take turns because I have some questions of my own. Fair enough?

• What is the official Catholic position on the inerrancy of Scripture?
  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE **

**105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69 **

**"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70 **

**106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71 **

[107 (http://javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/107.htm’) The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 **

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Paragraph 107 should suffice, I think. BTW, notice how early in the Catechism the Church mentions this. 107…not bad.

Now, a question for you (and please focus):

• Where does the Bible teach that scripture alone is to be considered the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian?
  I’m really hoping you might be more creative than 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Otherwise, my next question will be all over this.

**

 

[SolaScriptura]

One at a time, and we’ll take turns because I have some questions of my own. Fair enough?

Sounds good.

SolaScriptura:

• What is the official Catholic position on the inerrancy of Scripture?
  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE **

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

**"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70 **

**106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71 **

[107 (http://javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/107.htm’)** The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 **

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Paragraph 107 should suffice, I think. BTW, notice how early in the Catechism the Church mentions this. 107…not bad.

Actually that is not bad, but there is a problem. What does Paragraph 107 really mean? Fr. Raymond Brown and Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer are two of the greatest Roman Catholic biblical scholars of the 20th century . Both were appointed by Popes to Pontifical Biblical Commission, with Raymond Brown being appointed by two different Popes. When they read paragraph 107 and other infallible statements they come to the conclusion that paragraph 107 means the Scriptures are only infallible when dealing with issues that involve our salvation. That is how they would interpret this part of the paragraph:
… without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation…

So in other words the Scripture may contain errors on historical details or issues that are not strictly related to our salvation. So the question still is, what is the official position of Rome, are the Scriptures completely without error in every aspect or only in matters that pertain to our salvation? At least I know Fr. Raymond Brown and Fr. Joseph Fitzymyer are trusted by Popes based on their appointments. So I trust them or your private interpretation? Or should YOU trust them or you own private interpretation?

Now, a question for you (and please focus):

• Where does the Bible teach that scripture alone is to be considered the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian?
  I’m really hoping you might be more creative than 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Otherwise, my next question will be all over this.

The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith, because at points it history this was not true. It was not true when Jesus walked the earth, nor was it true when inspired revelation was being given to the Apostles. Sola Scriptura is a principle for the church today after the close of the canon when there is no direct revelation being given. It follows from these good and necessary consequences.

1. • God’s word is the highest authority
   • Only God is infallible or those He inspires by Holy Spirit
   • The Scriptures are the only verifiable word of God in the possession of the church, therefore it necessarily follows that they are the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
   Now don’t run off on rabbit trails, but instead deal with my response and show where it is fallacious.

 

[Janet_S]

Vincent of Lerins wrote “A Commonitory” in AD 434. Using Scripture alone is no guarantee of preserving correct doctrine. As a matter of fact, all heretics appeal to Scripture to support their beliefs.

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume34/vincent3401.cfm

[64.] Heres, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture ? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,–through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Tesment or the Old.

[67.] Such were they whom the Apostle Paul rebukes in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, when he says, “For of this sort are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.”(1) The apostles brought forward instances from Holy Scripture; these men did the same. The apostles cited the authority of the Psalms; these men did so likewise. The apostles brought forward passages from the prophets; these men still did the same. But when they began to interpret in different senses the passages which both had agreed in appealing to, then were discerned the guileless from the crafty, the genuine from the counterfeit, the straight from the crooked, then, in one word, the true apostles from the false apostles. “And no wonder,” he says, “for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. It is no marvel then if his servants are transformed as the servants of righteousness.” Therefore, according to the authority of the Apostle Paul, as often as either false apostles or false teachers cite passages from the Divine Law, by means of which, misinterpreted, they seek to prop up their own errors, there is no doubt that they are following the cunning devices of their father, which assuredly he would never have devised, but that he knew that where he could fraudulently and by stealth introduce error, there is no easier way of effecting his impious purpose than by pretending the authority of Holy Scripture.

[68.] BUT some one will say, What proof have we that the Devil is wont to appeal to Holy Scripture? Let him read the Gospels wherein it is written, “Then the Devil took Him (the Lord the Saviour) and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and said unto Him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, that they may keep thee in all thy ways: In their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perchance thou dash thy foot against a stone.”(2) What sort of treatment must men, insignificant wretches that they are, look for at the hands of him who assailed even the Lord of Glory with quotations from Scripture? “If thou be the Son of God,” saith be, “cast the, self down.” Wherefore? “For,” saith he, “it is written.” It behoves us to pay special attention to this passage and bear it in mind, that, warned by so important an instance of Evangelical authority, we may be assured beyond doubt, when we find people alleging passages from the Apostles or Prophets against the Catholic Faith, that the Devil speaks through their mouths. For as then the Head spoke to the Head, so now also the members speak to the members, the members of the Devil to the members of Christ, misbelievers to believers, sacrilegious to religious, in one word, Heretics to Catholics.

 

[SoonerServant]

…in one word, Heretics to Catholics.

This is my favorite part. Following along without saying anything, then taking a cheap shot. That looks like more than one word.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sounds good.

Actually that is not bad, but there is a problem. What does Paragraph 107 really mean? Fr. Raymond Brown and Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer are two of the greatest Roman Catholic biblical scholars of the 20th century . Both were appointed by Popes to Pontifical Biblical Commission, with Raymond Brown being appointed by two different Popes. When they read paragraph 107 and other infallible statements they come to the conclusion that paragraph 107 means the Scriptures are only infallible when dealing with issues that involve our salvation. That is how they would interpret this part of the paragraph:… without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation…So in other words the Scripture may contain errors on historical details or issues that are not strictly related to our salvation. So the question still is, what is the official position of Rome, are the Scriptures completely without error in every aspect or only in matters that pertain to our salvation? At least I know Fr. Raymond Brown and Fr. Joseph Fitzymyer are trusted by Popes based on their appointments. So I trust them or your private interpretation? Or should YOU trust them or you own private interpretation?

Sola-

My apologies for not responding sooner…the forum server was down yesterday and I could not log in. I’m going to respond to both parts of your last post; my first response will be to the questions quoted above, and my answer will be in two parts due to length.

Part 1

I appreciate your questions concerning Fr. Brown and Fr. Fitzmyer and their interpretation of the small phrase you highlighted from the Catechism. Perhaps a review of several official Church documents will shed some light on the official position of the Catholic Church concerning the inerrancy of Scripture.

Providentissimus Deus**, Pope Leo XIII, 1893**

“21. It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond…this system cannot be tolerated….It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error….all the Fathers and Doctors [of the Church] agreed that the divine writings, as left by the [sacred authors], are free from all error, [and] they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance…St. Augustine writing to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: ‘On my own part I confess… that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth I shall not hesitate to conclude that the text is faulty [due to copyist error] or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.’ ”

Divino Afflante Spiritu**, Pope Pius XII, 1943**

“1. …not merely because [the books of the canon] contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author…When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, [when these Catholic writers] ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals…Leo XIII…justly and rightly condemned these errors.”

“3. Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred’…”

“37. For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, ‘except sin,’ so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.”

Humani Generis**, Pope Pius XII, 1950**

“22. …For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council’s definition [Vatican Council I] that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Part 2

Vatican** Council II, Dei Verbum, 1965**

“9. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“11. Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings5 for the sake of our salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994

107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

+++

Footnote 72 from the CCC references Dei Verbum, Paragraph 11 which in turn references both Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu in footnote 5. These latter two documents specifically teach that the Bible contains no errors. Therefore, not only is there a clear link between all of these documents illustrating the consistency and uniformity of the Church’s teaching on this matter, but also it would make no sense for the CCC and Dei Verbum to reference these older works if, in fact, the Church was signaling a change in its position on this issue as is alleged by some. Any understanding to the contrary is a grave error.

Additionally, paragraph 107 specifically states that “all that the inspired authors affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit”. The contention of Frs. Brown and Fitzmyer that scripture can possibly contain errors on matters that do not relate to our salvation is in direct contradiction to the word, “all” and puts the Holy Spirit in the position of having inspired and affirmed error as was noted in the passage from Providentissimus Deus quoted above.

Sadly, these and other theologians may have looked for this single phrase, “for the sake of our salvation,” – which is found in a single paragraph of a single document from Vatican II – to open a door for their own pet ideas (ordination of women, acceptance of contraception, etc.), but this interpretation is out of sync with the historical teaching of the Church.

Consequently, I reject any argument from Protestant apologists hostile to the Catholic Church which suggests that the opinions of these Catholic theologians on this matter, regardless of their prominence, is evidence of confusion concerning the teaching of the Catholic Church on the inerrancy of the Bible, or that, as a result of the expression of these opinions, a lack of unity has been created among the Catholic faithful to the same degree and manner as is seen in Protestant denominationalism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith, because at points it history this was not true. It was not true when Jesus walked the earth, nor was it true when inspired revelation was being given to the Apostles. Sola Scriptura is a principle for the church today after the close of the canon when there is no direct revelation being given. It follows from these good and necessary consequences.

1. • God’s word is the highest authority
   • Only God is infallible or those He inspires by Holy Spirit
   • The Scriptures are the only verifiable word of God in the possession of the church, therefore it necessarily follows that they are the only infallible rule of faith for the church.
     Now don’t run off on rabbit trails, but instead deal with my response and show where it is fallacious.

1. 
   Question 2, Part 1
   
   I must say that I had to sit back and catch my breath for just a moment when I read the first sentence quoted above. Even now, several days later, I still find it hard to believe that you have openly abandoned the central premise that has sustained sola scripturists such as James White in his debate with Patrick Madrid or Michael Horton and team v. Patrick Madrid and team or the countless thousands of pastors, preachers and internet apologists who have virtually worn 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a talisman against all the evils of Rome from time out of memory. So be it. May that argument finally rest in peace.
   
   I confess that I do not frequent the website of James White nor do I read his books. Those that do, however, tell me that the argument you offered above is along the lines of the approach he has been espousing for some time (no doubt after realizing finally that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was not “sufficient” to save sola scriptura). I note specifically that you state, “It was not true when Jesus walked the earth”. Madrid pointed out the exact problem of “two ultimate authorities” in his debate with White. White must have taken the matter to heart because now the issue is addressed as an explicit component of your formulation. Rather than concede the point to Madrid, however, the new rationale for sola scriptura is that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith – just not always.
   
   I have to stop for a moment to remind you that you are the one who has argued strenuously elsewhere regarding the justification of Abraham when you wrote the following:
   

   The Catholic position about Abraham is nonsensical in the end. You have to believe the following in order to accept this teaching.
   

   1. Abraham was justified in Genesis 12 ( per Hebrews 11 )
   2. Abraham lost his justification
   3. Abraham was re-justified in Genesis 15 as an ungodly man( per Romans 4:1-5)
   4. Abraham lost his justification
   5. Abraham was re-justified in Genesis 22 on the basis of works.( per James 2:21,24)

   I say the sola scripturist position is nonsensical in the end. You have to believe the following in order to accept this teaching.
   • The Bible was the sole infallible rule of faith
   • Then Jesus came and it wasn’t the sole infallible rule of faith
   • Then He ascended and it was the sole infallible rule of faith
   • Then the Holy Spirit started inspiring the Apostles and it wasn’t the sole infallible rule of faith
   • Now the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith because the canon is closed.
     Obviously, I’m having a bit of fun lampooning your argument here, but I do see a parallel.
   (cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Part 2

“The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith.”

With this statement, the doctrine of sola scriptura is dead. Why? Because what you declare to be the “only verifiable word of God in the possession of the church” does not teach the very doctrine that you seek to defend. It is self-refuting.

In order for the Bible to function properly in the Church as the sole infallible rule of faith, the Bible must have something added to it – namely, the doctrine of sola scriptura itself – in order for the Church to even begin to consider the Bible as the sole infallible rule of faith because the Bible makes no such claim for itself. In other words, without this exterior doctrine or tradition proclaiming the Bible to be the sole infallible rule of faith, the Church would not come to this conclusion because there is no basis for such a belief found strictly within the pages of the Bible itself.

But suppose I decide to give you the benefit of the doubt and seek to determine the veracity of what you are teaching. Taking the doctrine of the “Bible Alone” out for a test drive, so to speak, I would first search the pages of scripture to verify whether the doctrine itself could be found there. We’ve already agreed that I won’t find it, and thus, my initial interaction with sola scriptura will leave me unimpressed.

Moreover, in the course of my review of the Bible, I will discover that the Bible itself commands me to hold fast to traditions passed on orally. I will be shocked to discover that your teaching contradicts, or sets aside, the sure teaching of scripture. Since it is not found in the pages of scripture and sets aside the commands of God, I will realize that what you are trying to teach me is a “tradition of men” – the likes of which Jesus condemned long ago. To my horror, I would realize that you and your false doctrine are dangerous to my salvation.

Put another way, you are teaching me a doctrine that I cannot find within the pages of the inerrant word of God. Why should I accept something that is not found in the Bible? On your authority? If the doctrine of *sola scriptura *is not found within the pages of scripture, then it has come from a source outside the Bible, and that source is necessarily fallible as you have laid it out above. Additionally, who says that the Bible is the only “verifiable word of God in the possession of the church”? You? As a Catholic, I recognize an infallible authority outside of scripture, but you are not it.

I would be happy to give you a detailed biblical explanation of how Jesus established a Church that exercises Apostolic Authority and maintains Apostolic Succession if you feel it would be helpful. Or would this be a “rabbit trail”?

Finally, I would like to close with the words of Dr. Art Sippo who wrote: “The Protestant must assume everything that the Catholic Church teaches about the Bible before it can function as his rule of faith. Because of that he must assume the existence of a definitive teaching authority that could discern the content, close the canon and INFALLIBLY teach its inerrancy before SS could function. As such the Protestant must ASSUME Catholicism before he can be a Protestant who DENIES Catholicism.”

 

[jacobaer]

Hi SolaScriptura,

As the Original Poster of this thread, and seeing as how I addressed it to you, I would like to comment on something you’ve stated.

You said: “The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith, because at points it history this was not true. It was not true when Jesus walked the earth, nor was it true when inspired revelation was being given to the Apostles.”

ME: WHAT!

Sola, you have just undercut your whole argument! Don’t you see it? If the Bible doesn’t say that the “Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith,” then there is nothing to debate here! We’ve told you that the Bible doesn’t say this and NOW you agree!

Then you said: “Sola Scriptura is a principle for the church today after the close of the canon when there is no direct revelation being given.”

ME: On what or whose authority do you base this doctrinal statement? Since the Bible doesn’t say it, where do you get your authority to say it?

You said: “It follows from these good and necessary consequences: God’s word is the highest authority…”

ME: Absolutely!

You said: “…only God is infallible or those He inspires by Holy Spirit…”

ME: Yes!

Now, in Acts 15, it is CLEAR that the Holy Spirit did not only inspire the Apostles, but the presbyters/elders who met with them in council.

Acts 15:23-29:

“With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 2ou are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.”

In context, the “us” is the authors of the letter…the Apostles and elders. So would it be fair to say that the Apostolic authority was being shared here? And if it was shared here, what about after the Apostles were gone? Did the “elders” still have that Apostolic authority?

You said: “…the Scriptures are the only verifiable word of God in the possession of the church, therefore it necessarily follows that they are the only infallible rule of faith for the church.”

ME: Now you are relying on logic, you are relying on YOUR OWN reasoning to come to this conclusion. And since, as you will agree, you are fallible, YOU could be wrong in making this statement. It is not based on Scripture, as you have stated. You’ve stated that SCRIPTURE is the only infallible rule of faith, not your reasoning.

You’re close, brother, you are real close! Jesus is waiting for you in the Eucharist.

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[jacobaer]

Just as a P.S., does any other Protestant brother or sister who has been following/participating in this thread agree with his assertion that the Bible doesn’t say that the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith?

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[Randy_Carson]

Remember - focus like a laser!

1. Is the doctrine of sola scriptura an infallible teaching? If so, please cite the authority by which I can be sure of this.
2. Would I be wrong to deny that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian? If yes, then since the “Scriptures are the only verifiable word of God in the possession of the Church”, please provide the scriptures which prove my error.

No rabbit trails, okay?

 

[mikeledes]

Might i remind you all of the word of GOD and the wisdom in it.

1Cr 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ.
1Cr 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.
1Cr 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Cr 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Cr 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Cr 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
1Cr 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, [ye are] God’s building.
1Cr 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 So were does your contention come from. Yea are carnal and are seeking to justify your ideas from a carnal mindset. Paul said it best are you of Paul or of Peter or Mark. They are only fellow ministers of Christ. Did you notice that Paul layed the foundation you know he is the apostle to the gentiles. But then he clarified that in the end stating that Jesus Christ is the foundation that he has build upon. Paul is speaking to people in his authority which is in Christ. So why did he give this word. People were doing the same as you are doing they were seeking to justify there carnal view of things and not seeking the spiritual wisdom of the age. 
 To live by the letter of the law is death, we are not of the law but of Grace. When you look at all the many churchs of this world what you are seeing are people who are under grace. Noted some are greatly decieved JWs mormans ect. But for the most part they are not. In Judgeing these people do you not sin, Is not God alone judge. Even the prophets of old knew this. 
 I can take the bible and make it mean so many differnet things, yeat i do not. Paul makes it clear in this passage that not one apostle is over another, that they are co-labors and they are only ministers. That God gives the increase that he Christ is the foundaton that all are build upon. So when you say peter is the rock. That goes directly against sctipture as taught by a apostle of God. 
 The context of Galatians shows that Paul regarded Peter of such a great authority it is hard to imagine Paul literally rebuking Peter. Galatians 1:18; 2:1-2  
Paul did correct Peter. Paul with stood Peter and challanged him on a error of his conduct and teaching. Concerning the law of Mosus and living as Jews. So much for papal authority peter was not with out error. So he was corrected by God thru a apostle, who else would God use. All apostle have the same authority. Peter was trying to lay a on the foundation of christ with a wrong teaching. The reason i point this out is that it flies in the face of all the teaching of the catholic chruch does it not.
 Now how can i say that, i have scripture to back it up. That is why Sola Scriptura is so important. The scriptures are required to make sure you are on the right path and following the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. I will assure you that God is working greatly in these chruchs you are denouncing. People are gettign saved every day outside the catholic church. People are getting healed also all over the world and again it is outside the instituation of the catholic church. So if people are being saved blessed and healed and it is taking place outside the catholic church it should reall make you think what is going on. Could it be they have had a encounter with Christ the same as paul did. Paul was changed so is every one who mets Christ. So does God give us the scriptures as a pretty book or is he expecting you to read it and get wisdom from it. You know you are going to be judged on it. Study to show yourself approved.

You are terribly mistaken. In Acts 15, it was Peter who clearly taught salvation by grace and not by observance of the Law of Moses (circumcision, etc.). What Paul criticized was Peter’s behavior. In order not to offend the Jewish Christians, Peter would separate from the Gentiles. There is absolutely no indication that Peter formally taught observance of the Law of Moses as necessary for salvation, particularly in light of Acts 15.

God Bless,
michael

 

[mikeledes]

This is my favorite part. Following along without saying anything, then taking a cheap shot. That looks like more than one word.

Soonerservant, correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, necessary to be a child of God. Explain why you clearly see that in Scripture but your fellow Protestants do not?

Sola Scriptura, you mentioned the divisions in the early church, using the Arians as an example. So do you believe the Arians were your “brothers and sisters in Christ?” I see them for what they were, heretics. All of the divisions of the first five centuries were heresies, and any Protestant will agree with that (i.e. Arians, Nestorians, Sabellians, Montanists, Gnostics, etc.). There was a clear distinction between orthodoxy and heresy.

Now the Molinists and the Thomists disagree on the precise relationship between divine election and free will. However, like I said, they remain within the structure of the Church, identify themselves as Catholic, and subect themselves to the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Since the Magisterium has not formally pronounced on this issue, both the Molinist and Thomist positions are acceptable. What has been the historic practice of Protestantism. You disagree with your church’s teaching on baptism? Split and form your own church if you don’t find one that fits your own theology. Most Protestant Churches are splinter groups from other Protestant Churches (ex. Methodism split from Anglicanism).

Now I ask you and all Protestants this question. Why is it that what you see as clearly taught in the Bible is not seen by other sincere Protestants? Why is Soonerservant against infant baptism and sees baptism as being necessary for salvation, while Sola Scriptura sees infant baptism as being clearly Scriptural and does not believe baptism is necessary for salvation? And yet they both uphold Sola Scriptura.

Finally, why did God allow His Church to fall into error for over a millenia and then, when Martin Luther came along, a whole host of new denominations arose with contradictroy teachings? Contradiction means that someone has mixed truth with error (falsehood). Either all Protestants sects are a mixture of truth and falsehood, or one is doctrinally pure while the others are polluted. The church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” You can only have one church that proclaims God’s Word accurately.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

**14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work**

This is the one passage that may imply Sola Scriptura. And yet, the word “profitable” (other translations have “useful”) undermines the Sola Scriptura argument. Profitable does not mean sufficient or sole vehicle God chose for divine Revelation. In addition, this passage does not say “Only Scripture is…” Sola Scriptura is such a foundational teaching of Protestantism, and yet there is no clear and explicit reference to it in Scripture. There is not one passage in Scripture that says that the Bible is the sole rule faith.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

**14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, **

**15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

**16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; **

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work

This is the one passage that may imply Sola Scriptura. And yet, the word “profitable” (other translations have “useful”) undermines the Sola Scriptura argument. Profitable does not mean sufficient or sole vehicle God chose for divine Revelation. In addition, this passage does not say “Only Scripture is…” Sola Scriptura is such a foundational teaching of Protestantism, and yet there is no clear and explicit reference to it in Scripture. There is not one passage in Scripture that says that the Bible is the sole rule faith.

God Bless,
Michael

Let’s look at 2 Timothy 14-17 another way:

"14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (TRADITION)

, because you know those from whom you learned it, (MAGISTERIUM)

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, (SCRIPTURE)

which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

Paul then provides additional insight and thoughts on the value of Sacred Scripture in its role of completing and supplementing the oral preaching (or tradition) that Paul had passed on by virtue of his teaching authority (or magisterium) in the following verses:

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[kaycee]

**14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work**

This is the one passage that may imply Sola Scriptura. And yet, the word “profitable” (other translations have “useful”) undermines the Sola Scriptura argument. Profitable does not mean sufficient or sole vehicle God chose for divine Revelation. In addition, this passage does not say “Only Scripture is…” Sola Scriptura is such a foundational teaching of Protestantism, and yet there is no clear and explicit reference to it in Scripture. There is not one passage in Scripture that says that the Bible is the sole rule faith.

God Bless,
Michael

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Not scripture, Not God-Breathed. Thoroughly seems to be good enough for me.

Joshua 1:8 Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.

Joh 17:17 -
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

Ps 119:105 -
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.

Psalm 138:2 I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.

What other God-Breathed revelation must we have???

 

[Randy_Carson]

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Not scripture, Not God-Breathed. Thoroughly seems to be good enough for me.

Joshua 1:8 Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.

Joh 17:17 -
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

Ps 119:105 -
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.

Psalm 138:2 I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.

What other God-Breathed revelation must we have???

Kaycee-

Amen! As a member of the original Bible Church, I, as a Catholic, love and agree with every single one of those verses. I just don’t agree with your personal interpretation of them.

You are right about one thing: you need no other God-breathed revelation. What you do need is Apostolic Authority to interpret what you read infallibly. This you do not have.

Fortunately, Jesus did not leave us a book - He left a Church led by Apostles to which He gave his own Authority received from the Father along with the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them (ie, the Church - not you individually) into all truth. For example:

“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” (1 Th 2:13)

In this passage, Paul states that his preaching is the word of God. How does this compare with scripture which is “God-breathed” (theopneustos)?

How do you know - all by yourself - that the 27 books in your New Testament are, in fact, God-breathed?

Do you rely upon a “burning in the bosom” as the Mormons do to know that scripture is true?

Did God provide an inspired table of contents or did the publisher add that to make it easier to find your way around?

Can you specify what it is about the book of Philemon that seems especially “God-breathed” as you read it?

Why did Luther leave out the Epistle of James and Revelation from the first edition of his German translation? Why did Luther attempt to add the word “alone” to Romans 3:28?

Revelation 22:18-19 says, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

How does this passage apply to Martin Luther in light of the additions and subtractions he made to the word of God?

What would you say if any Pope had ever attempted to add or subtract from the word of God the way the “Father of the Reformation” did?

If one denomination teaches the baptism of infants while another decries this as an error and both claim to be basing their position upon the Bible as the “sole infallible rule of faith for the believer”, which of them is wrongly “dividing the word of truth” since they cannot both be right?

 

[SoonerServant]

Hypocrites! Matthew 23:9

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hypocrites! Matthew 23:9

Calling Priests Father

---

From a parable of Jesus
"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ’ Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ "But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ "He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:19-31)

Did Jesus contradict His own teaching against calling someone “father” by using that very phrase in His own parable? Or have you misunderstood what our Lord meant when he said, “Call no man your father.”

From the teaching of Paul
“I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

“I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philemon 10)

“To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Timothy 1:2)

“To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4)

From a Letter of John
“No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4)

Sounds like Paul and John considered themselves spiritual fathers to all these disciples, doesn’t it? And this is from the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit, is it not?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sadly, these and other theologians may have looked for this single phrase, “for the sake of our salvation,” – which is found in a single paragraph of a single document from Vatican II – to open a door for their own pet ideas (ordination of women, acceptance of contraception, etc.), but this interpretation is out of sync with the historical teaching of the Church.

Consequently, I reject any argument from Protestant apologists hostile to the Catholic Church which suggests that the opinions of these Catholic theologians on this matter, regardless of their prominence, is evidence of confusion concerning the teaching of the Catholic Church on the inerrancy of the Bible, or that, as a result of the expression of these opinions, a lack of unity has been created among the Catholic faithful to the same degree and manner as is seen in Protestant denominationalism.

Hi Randy,

You have to learn how to make your point more succinctly. Many words do not make a more convincing response. All you end up doing is wasting a lot of time.

You are proving my point not refuting. Fr Raymond Brown,Fr Joseph Fitzmyer, Fr Roland Murphy, and many other Catholic scholars would disagree with you on your interpretations and the significance of those encyclicals. Furthermore, Fr Brown was appointed by two different Popes to Biblical Commissions in 1972 and 1996. This was after all the quotes you provided and he openly held to his views that the Scriptures contained errors. If this was official church teaching why would Popes honor men such as these to be on Biblical Commissions of all things? All you have provided is your private interpretation of what the church officially teaches and you act as if the above scholars have never seen those encyclicals before? Do you think all encyclicals are infallible teaching?

Anyway the point is demonstrated because Catholics have different opinions on such important matters and neither side is considered outside of the bounds of the church by Popes.