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

[jacobaer]

Sola,

When you made this statement…”* The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith”…*you stepped OUT of the realm of “Thus says the Lord,” and into the realm of “I say that this is what Scripture says and what you should believe.”
**
**So why should we believe YOU? You are just giving us your interpretation of what you think Scripture is saying. Who gave you authority to bind our conscience to believe the way you do?
**
**Peace,
Jacobaer
**

 

[jacobaer]

Sola,

You said to Randy Carson: “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.”

ME: Why do you subtly demean your brother in Christ? Are you unable to debate/discuss without getting personal?

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scripture also never says. “The Word of God must be interpreted by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church”

My reply will be lengthy but worth reading and chock full of scriptures.

The Church’s authority is unique in that it is derived from the authority of the Apostles themselves. Apostolic Authority flows from the Authority of Jesus and the Father.

All authority comes from God. This authority was given by God the Father to Jesus who, in turn, gave it to His disciples. He gave them “all authority” to “make disciples of all nations”. We also see another example of the authority given to the Apostles in the Gospel of John:

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’ " (John 20:21-23)

From this passage, we see again that Jesus said, “as the Father has sent me (with all authority in heaven and on earth), so “I am sending you” with all of that exact same authority. Note further that Jesus has given the Apostles the authority to forgive men’s sins. Yet, as the Jews asked on another occasion:

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 5:5)

But Jesus knew their thoughts and asked:

“Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:4-8)

Notice that the Jews did not praise God who had “given such authority to a man” – a single man named Jesus. Instead, they praised God because the authority to forgive sins has now been passed into the hands of mankind. Moreover, with this kind of authority firmly conveyed to them, the Apostles spoke with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. This was confirmed when Jesus said,

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

From this, we can see plainly that the Apostles in the early church spoke with the authority of Christ and God the Father and that the early church could rely on the authority of the apostles because when they spoke, the church heard Jesus speaking. Listening to the Apostles was the same as listening to Jesus; rejection of the Apostles was rejection of both Jesus and the Father. Jesus cannot possibly identify Himself more closely with the Apostles than He did in this verse

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ " (Matthew 28:18-19)

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ ” (John 20:21)

From this, we can see that God the Father has given all authority to God the Son who in turn bestows this authority upon His own disciples and sends them out to preach the truth to all the world. Thus, we can see that the Apostolic Authority of the Church is God-given. But how closely should the Church be identified with Christ? Jesus Himself specified how we should receive those sent by Christ:

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Echoing the words of Jesus, the Apostle John wrote:

“We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” 1 John 4:6

John says that we can tell who is and is not of God by determining who does and does not listen to “us” – in other words, John, specifically. John wrote “us” to emphasize his unity with the other Apostles and those who were in agreement with them. Peter also spoke of these reliable witnesses who spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit when he wrote:

“It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.” (1 Peter 1:12)

From this, we can see that there was a group of men, called “Apostles”, who could be listened to with confidence. We’ll look at this group of men more closely in a moment, but first, let’s consider the issue of whether we can trust what the church tells us about the truth we need for salvation.

In order to lead people into all truth free from error, Jesus established a church that is infallible

Reflecting on what we read just a moment ago in Luke 10:16, we realize that if we are actually hearing Jesus when we hear His Apostles, then we can be sure that the Church is speaking the truth because Jesus cannot speak anything other than the truth.

However, we need to know for sure that the Church which speaks for Christ is actually “getting the message right” and that they have not somehow distorted the words of Jesus like children playing a game of “Telephone”. Fortunately, there are scriptures that give us confidence that the Church founded by Christ is prevented from teaching anything that conflicts with the truth. Taking a second look at the verses quoted from Matthew 28 above:

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ ” (Matthew 28:18-19)

Focusing on the last phrase, we can see that Jesus has promised that He will remain with the Church “always, to the end of the age.” With Jesus remaining with her always, how can the Church go wrong when teaching the truth about Christ Himself? But there’s more:

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Jesus promises that the Spirit will teach them all things, to remind them of everything Jesus had said to them, and to guide them into all truth. It is this sure guidance of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. The Apostles were able to teach without error, or infallibly, because the Spirit of God guided them. This is how we can be sure that apostolic authority is the sure guide to finding the truth we need for salvation - the Apostolic church is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals. Does this “apostolicity” still exist today? Absolutely.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus established His church forever by means of Apostolic Succession

We saw earlier that Jesus established an authoritative church and that the authority was Apostolic in nature. Further, we saw that the church was infallible because of the promises Jesus made about sending the Holy Spirit to remain with the church forever. To answer the question of whether an apostolic church still exists, we need to look at the passage from Matthew we just read, and as we do, we will begin to see just how closely the concepts of authority, infallibility and apostolic succession are tied together.

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ “ (Matthew 28:18-19)

First, notice in the passage known as the “Great Commission”, that the Apostles were commanded to make disciples of “all nations”. How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths. Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.

“But,” some people might argue, “the promise of the Holy Spirit was given while Jesus was still on earth. What assurance do we have that the Church would have this same authority after Jesus had ascended into heaven?”

In John, we find the answer to this question:

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:25-26)

“But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:13)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, Jesus was speaking while still with the Apostles; however, he also promises that the Holy Spirit would be sent to them after He ascends to the Father. “But wait,” some will say, “this only applies to the original Apostles while they were still alive. After the death of the last Apostle, the Spirit would no longer be with the church. That is why we have the Bible.” Let’s examine further what Jesus said:

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (John 14:16-17)

Does it make sense for Jesus to say “forever” if He anticipated that the Holy Spirit would depart from the church with the death of the last Apostle? No! The Spirit would remain with the Apostles and, through those who succeeded them, with the church forever. As we saw earlier, he also said,

“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-19)

Again, how could Jesus remain with the church until the end of the age if the Apostolic Authority of the church ended with the death of the last Apostle? It is through the office of Apostle, and not through the individual Apostles themselves, that Jesus established and maintains His authority in the Church. Let us consider the Word of God:

“Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Corinthians 12:28)

From this, we can see that God established the position of Apostle in the Church along with that of prophet and teacher among others. We saw earlier that Jesus did not command his disciples to “go, therefore, write books, and let everyone decide for themselves what is true”. No! The mission of the Apostles, the mission of the Church, was to teach, to make disciples of all nations, to baptize, etc. Making disciples of all nations would take time. Therefore, God established the office of Apostle in the church, but He never says anything about this being for the first couple of centuries only. He never says “until you can get the New Testament written and canonized.” The Church is still with us, so there must still be Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ, and these current apostles must still have the same authority that was entrusted to the original Twelve and passed down as was noted earlier. This is called, “Apostolic Succession.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Also, we saw earlier that Jesus promised to be with the Apostles until the end of the age. How could he do that if the disciples themselves did not live until the end of the age? Clearly, Jesus must have intended that the apostles would be succeeded by other men who are still with us and will live until the end of the age. Jesus can be with the Apostles through their successors who also have the same Apostolic Authority by means of Apostolic Succession.

Eventually, of course, Peter, James and John all died. What provisions were made for replacing these Apostles after their deaths? Let’s consider what the Bible tells us about Apostolic Succession:

“During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:15-26)

In this passage, we see that the original eleven Apostles acted to fill the vacant position or office that was held previously by Judas. Thus, when the office-holder died, he was replaced. This process of replacement explains one aspect of Apostolic Succession. Already within the early Church, we can see that there were 13 Apostles – not just the original Twelve.

“But wait,” some will object. “There were still only 12 offices; Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot. He did not add another office. I don’t see where the church should have more than 12 Apostles based on this passage.” For the answer to this question, we must look to another passage from the Book of Acts:

“The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you.” (Acts 14:13-15)

From this passage, we can see that the number of Apostles had expanded beyond the original Twelve; there were now 15 men who had held the office of Apostle. From these men, the authority of Jesus given to the original Twelve was passed on to other men who passed on that authority to still other men who followed them. The Apostles were the first Bishops; they appointed or ordained others, as well. As the Church grew, so too did the number of Bishops who served the needs of the Church. The leadership of the church can be seen to expand in several passages:

“This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.” (1 Timothy 3:1)

The Bishops also appointed presbyters (or priests) and deacons as helpers in the service of the Church.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

In several passages in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, we can see that Paul acted as a “spiritual father” passing on his Apostolic Authority to his “sons” as an “inheritance”. There are numerous examples of this language in these letters, but one should suffice:

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy, my true child in faith” (1 Timothy 1:1-2)

Other examples can be found in 2 Timothy 1:2 and 2:1, 1 Timothy 1:18 and Titus 1:4. Similarly, in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul highlighted the authority with which they should receive Timothy when he wrote:

“For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.” (1 Corinthians 4:17)

Timothy was sent to Corinth with the Authority of Paul to teach and remind them of the things Paul had taught them personally. Again, Paul instructed Timothy concerning the handing on of his teachings:

“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” (2 Timothy 2:2)

In this one passage, we see four generations in the line of Apostolic Succession: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would pass on Paul’s teachings, and 4) those whom they in turn would teach. Remember, the mission of the Church is to teach, and one office in the Church is that of teacher. Thus, Paul is instructing Timothy about the handing on of teachings of Christ which is the function of a Bishop. This is Apostolic Succession at work. Paul also told Titus:

“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer [or bishop] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless” (Titus 1:5-7)

Paul, tells Titus to appoint Bishops in every town; the consecration of Bishops is something that only another bishop can do, so here we see another example of Apostolic Authority and Apostolic Succession at work: Paul has ordained Titus and given him the authority to ordain others. The expanding church needed an expanding leadership.

In keeping with the mission of the Church which is to teach, Paul told Timothy:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.” (1 Timothy 1:3)

“Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:11-13)

Preaching, teaching, commanding others, appointing Bishops: these are the things that Paul has given Timothy and Titus the authority to do. But how was this Apostolic Authority handed on? By a formal ceremony known as “laying on of hands” as we see in the following passages:

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.” (2 Tim 1:6)

“Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders [or bishops] laid their hands on you.” (1 Timothy 4:14)

Paul also cautions Timothy:

“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands” (1 Timothy 5:22)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

CONCLUSION

So we see that the ordaining of Bishops is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men.

Do these passages give us any impression that the early Church taught that anyone and everyone could pick up a Bible, interpret it for themselves, and then begin to exercise true, Apostolic Authority in the course of fulfilling the teaching mission of the Church of God infallibly? No! The Apostles, who were chosen and sent by Jesus and led by the promised Holy Spirit, have passed on not only the teaching that they received from Jesus, but also their God-given authority through the formal “laying on of hands” upon other men from one generation to the next from their day all the way down to our own time. This is Apostolic Succession. This is how we can be sure that the Church today teaches infallibly from the word of God concerning the truths that we must know to be saved.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jerome

“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

Many of the books of the Bible were in dispute in the early Church. Heck, Luther tried to toss out James and Revelation just a few years back.

Fortunately, the Catholic Church infallibly discerned what should and should not be included in the canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not “over the Bible” as has been suggested in this thread; she serves the Bible by protecting and preserving it from those who would seek to add to it, subtract from it or interpret it incorrectly.

No thanks neccessary…just doing our job.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I read what you posted. You act as if Fr Brown, Fr Fitzmyer, and others have never read these things. First of all as I pointed out to you everything a Pope writes in an encyclical is considered infallible and binding on all Catholics. If so, you are force to admit the earlier Popes who wrote encyclicals agreeing with the Arians bound all Catholics over to that heresy.

I don’t need to read any further.

This is wrong.

Encyclicals are not infallible statements.

All of your thought is based upon a false premise.

Do some homework.

Sorry, Sola, but I think we’re done.

 

[mikeledes]

It is there by good and necessary consequence. If my reasoning is wrong, then you should be able to show where it is wrong. If you cannot then it must be right. It is very simple.
God’s word ( Scripture in this case ) is infallible. You agree.
God’s authority is the highest authority. You agree.
Scriptures teach they are the word of God. You agree.
So unless you can show that there is another source in possession of the church, then it logically follows that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. All you have to do to refute the logic is demonstrate another rule of faith that is infallible and equal to God’s authority.

You believe in material sufficiency of Scripture, despite the fact that your rule of faith doesn’t explicitly teach it.

And for many Catholics the belief does not hold water when tested against your rule of faith.

Whatever your reasons are for believing in it would be dismissed as purely private interpretation. What assurance do you have that you’re right and they’re wrong if you can’t point to the unanimous consent or dogma of your church for believing in material sufficiency.

So if you can’t point to a single dogma or universal consent that explicitly teaches material sufficiency or a host of other doctrines what assurance do you have that it’s right?
This is getting old Michael. You have to advance the argument and quit repeating the same ole tired arguments warmed over. What I mean by advancing the argument is that you have to demonstrate why all of your argument don’t boomerang back on your own position. You have not done this. You offer some special pleading(i.e. heretics if they leave the church, doesn’t count if they stay it), but no cogent reason. Maybe you should dedicate a post to that so we can get off this merry-go-round.

1. First of all, I would like a reference that discusses the opposing arguments on material sufficiency among Catholics.
2. Secondly, whatever is taught in the Catechism about Catholicism is what is binding on all Catholics. If they chose not to believe, that is a different story.
3. Regarding the inerrancy of Scripture. With the advent of modern archaeology and historical research, new challenges have arisen that theologians have to address. How does one deal with these challenges without destroying the integrity of the Bible as Divine Revelation? That is what these scholars are attempting to do. The Church gives them breathing room to work this out theologically. This is not unusual. For example, there were debates regarding what terminology the Church should use with regard to the Trinity until it was settled in the Council of Nicaea. The Canon of Scripture was debated until it was formally closed by the Church. Acts 15 discusses the debate on the realtionship of the Law of Moses to the New Covenant and it was finally settled by the Council of Jerusalem.
4. The idea that God’s Word is exclusively contained in the Bible has not been proven nor has it been shown to be a good and necessary consequence. Since Protestants believe the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, “good and necessary consequence” is a very subjective standard to determine whether something is true or not. What is a “good and necesssary consequence” in your eyes is not the case in the eyes of another Protestant. Again, I bring the example of infant baptism. You see it in the Bible by good and necessary consequence. Others see the complete opposite. If its a “good and necessary consequence,” then all Protestants should draw the same conclusion. So “good and neccessary” consequence does not prove Sola Scriptura.
5. Whether a heretic stays within the Church or outside does not change the fact that he’s a heretic. A heretic is one who denies a doctrine that has been formally defined as divinely revealed truth.
6. Whether you want to accept it or not, the nature of the divisions in Protestantism is very different from that found in Catholicism. In Catholicism, the division largely involves ultra-conservative traditionalist Catholics and liberal Catholics. Among Protestants, you have the Conservative vs. Liberal divide plus a whole host of doctrinal issues (especially the nature of salvation). What you consider ‘non-essential’ other Protestants do not. Finally, just list all the Catholic “splinter groups” and compare that with a list of Protestant denominations. That will show that there is a higher propensity for splintering and division in Protestantism than in Catholicism.
7. Both of the most ancient Christian Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) do not believe in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not the historic teaching of Chrsitianity.

God Bless,
michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. First of all, I would like a reference that discusses the opposing arguments on material sufficiency among Catholics.
2. Secondly, whatever is taught in the Catechism about Catholicism is what is binding on all Catholics. If they chose not to believe, that is a different story.
3. Regarding the inerrancy of Scripture. With the advent of modern archaeology and historical research, new challenges have arisen that theologians have to address. How does one deal with these challenges without destroying the integrity of the Bible as Divine Revelation? That is what these scholars are attempting to do. The Church gives them breathing room to work this out theologically. This is not unusual. For example, there were debates regarding what terminology the Church should use with regard to the Trinity until it was settled in the Council of Nicaea. The Canon of Scripture was debated until it was formally closed by the Church. Acts 15 discusses the debate on the realtionship of the Law of Moses to the New Covenant and it was finally settled by the Council of Jerusalem.
4. The idea that God’s Word is exclusively contained in the Bible has not been proven nor has it been shown to be a good and necessary consequence. Since Protestants believe the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, “good and necessary consequence” is a very subjective standard to determine whether something is true or not. What is a “good and necesssary consequence” in your eyes is not the case in the eyes of another Protestant. Again, I bring the example of infant baptism. You see it in the Bible by good and necessary consequence. Others see the complete opposite. If its a “good and necessary consequence,” then all Protestants should draw the same conclusion. So “good and neccessary” consequence does not prove Sola Scriptura.
5. Whether a heretic stays within the Church or outside does not change the fact that he’s a heretic. A heretic is one who denies a doctrine that has been formally defined as divinely revealed truth.
6. Whether you want to accept it or not, the nature of the divisions in Protestantism is very different from that found in Catholicism. In Catholicism, the division is largely involves ultra-conservative traditionalist Catholics and liberal Catholics. Among Protestants, you have the Conservative vs. Liberal divide plus a whole host of doctrinal issues (especially the nature of salvation). What you consider ‘non-essential’ other Protestants do not. Finally, just list all the Catholic “splinter groups” and compare that with a list of Protestant denominations. That will show that there is a higher propensity for splintering and division in Protestantism than in Catholicism.
7. Both of the most ancient Christian Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) do not believe in Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not the historic teaching of Chrsitianity.

God Bless,
michael

He who has ears, let him hear.

 

[mikeledes]

Sola and Kaycee, I have two questions:

1. If Sola Scriptura was the teaching of the Early Church, why is it that a formally defined canon (particularly of the New Testament) did not exist until the fourth and fifth centuries? If the Bible is the sole infallible authority on matters of doctrine, then I would expect more urgency in discerning which books were inspired and which were not, not a 300 year waiting period.
2. If the Bible is the sole infallible authority on doctrine, who put the Bible together? Who discerned which books were inspired and which were not?
3. How do you know with absolute certainty that all of the books contained in your Bible are inspired? How do you know that the Letter of Jude or 3 John belong in the Bible? A letter can sound authoritative, its content can be absolutely true, and can even be written by an apostle, but that still does not make it automatiocally inspired. Several letters of Paul did not make it into the canon.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[kaycee]

Many of the books of the Bible were in dispute in the early Church. Heck, Luther tried to toss out James and Revelation just a few years back.

Fortunately, the Catholic Church infallibly discerned what should and should not be included in the canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not “over the Bible” as has been suggested in this thread; she serves the Bible by protecting and preserving it from those who would seek to add to it, subtract from it or interpret it incorrectly.

No thanks neccessary…just doing our job.

Luckily the RCC straightend God and the Jews out for not including the Apocrapha.

 

[mikeledes]

Luckily the RCC straightend God and the Jews out for not including the Apocrapha.

Hey, we also straightened out your New Testament.

God Bless,
michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

Luckily the RCC straightend God and the Jews out for not including the Apocrapha.

You do realize that these seven books were part of the Bible for 1100 years from the fourth century councils that established the canon until the 1500’s when a Protestant named

Martin Luther

subtracted

them

from

the

Bible.

We never added anything, but he took away.

“And 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.” (Rev 22:19)

 

[kaycee]

You do realize that these seven books were part of the Bible for 1100 years from the fourth century councils that established the canon until the 1500’s when a Protestant named Martin Luther subtracted
them from the Bible.

You must also realize that 400 years prior to the Birth of Christ and almost 400 years after, none of Gods people accepted the Apocrapha.
The Old Testament was given by God to the Jewish people, **in the words of the Apostle, “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” **The Jews have never accepted anything more than the canonical books of the Old Testament. For example, the Jewish scholars of Jamnia in A.D. 90 recognized the books of the Old Testament, as did the Early Church and Christians of today. They did not recognize the Apocrypha. The Jewish historian, Josephus (A.D. 30-100), explicitly excludes the Apocrypha.

We never added anything

“And 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.” (Rev 22:19)

AMEN

 

[SolaScriptura]

This is the same ploy attempted by James White - shifting the burden of proof.

No, it is not shifting the burden of proof. No one can prove a universal negative. So all you have to do to show my reasoning is wrong is prove there is an exception to the case.

I do not have to prove the existence of another infallible rule of faith (though I could do so in another thread, and I would be happy to do so since I think it might bring you home to the true Church).

Yes, you do. I’ve made the argument that there are no other infallible rules of faith that are equal in authority with God words as we have in the Scriptures. I have demonstrated the Scriptures makes these claims for themselves. How do you prove that is wrong? You show me another source that is of equal or greater authority.

You have the burden of proof to show where the Bible teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura. If James White could not do it, I am not optimistic about your chances. I still have this ringing in my ears:
"The bible never says the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith …"

No, the bible never says it explicitly, but that doesn’t mean it does not teach it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You must also realize that 400 years prior to the Birth of Christ and almost 400 years after, none of Gods people accepted the Apocrapha.
The Old Testament was given by God to the Jewish people, **in the words of the Apostle, “unto them were committed the oracles of God.” **The Jews have never accepted anything more than the canonical books of the Old Testament. For example, the Jewish scholars of Jamnia in A.D. 90 recognized the books of the Old Testament, as did the Early Church and Christians of today. They did not recognize the Apocrypha. The Jewish historian, Josephus (A.D. 30-100), explicitly excludes the Apocrypha.

Though this is not a sound objection, it at least requires a detailed answer.

God’s written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them with an inspired table of contents. For that reason, there has been ample disagreement over the canon—especially among Jews.

The Old Testament took over one thousand years to compile, and the list of inspired books grew continuously as God’s word was revealed. This gradual accretion indicated that the Jewish people felt no need for a static canon but remained open to further revelation. They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law—and most likely the prophets—was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed.

In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septaguint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.

When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics.

If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ.

At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Further, if Catholics added the deuterocanonical books in 1546, then Martin Luther beat us to the punch: He included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Guttenberg Bible (a century before Trent). In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.