How does a Catholic respond to a Protestant who cites John 20:31 to support that Scripture is sufficient for salvation? It seems that’s pretty much what it says.
It’s the middle of the night here…I shouldn’t even be up…
:coffeeread:
Not sure how clearly I’m thinking…but here goes.
I think we need to separate “supports” from “proves”. In the above, your friend starts from a position of “Scripture is sufficient” and then quotes things that support that position.
But - whether those things that support the position actually prove it or not is another matter.
The Sola Scripturist will view such things as proofs. The Catholic will say that they certainly support the
importance of Scripture, but that they don’t
prove the sufficiency of Scripture alone for salvation.
By the same token the Catholic will show the Sola Scripturist passages that support the position that the Church, the papacy etc. are necessary for salvation. The Sola Scripturist might likewise agree that these do support our position - but that they do not prove it.
Then there is the non-believer who looks at both our “proofs” and denies them all - pointing to inconsistencies etc as “proof” that Scripture is wrong, or can’t be trusted or…
In all of these cases there can be the error of starting from a certain position and looking for (or just “seeing”) texts that support that position. I think that is called “proof texting”. Generally it isn’t done maliciously or even intentionally.
The fact is that we all tend to do this to some degree or other. We really can’t help it. We bring our own ideas, our own understanding, our own “right thinking” and our own “wrong thinking” to the text.
Where we are in our journey, the faith tradition we are raised in - or through which we came to Christ - our personalities etc all play a role in this.
The important thing is to recognize this - that you are making good points and so is the person you are speaking with. Both of you love Christ and are seeking salvation for yourself and others.
In the subject text…one needs to ask - what does it say and what does it mean and what does it lead to.
It says that there is so much more to Jesus life than just what was recorded. It invites one to seek out a greater understanding - perhaps to seek out an apostle or other disciples to learn more.
It says that what is written is designed (intended) to be sufficient to bring one to belief - and that is great - but then what does this “belief” entail? If what is written is intended to be sufficient to bring one to belief in Jesus as the Messiah - as the Christ. what does that belief in Christ entail?
This is probably the bigger question for discussion with your protestant friend.
Peace
James
As well, sola scriptura seems to assume that whatever is not written is unnecessary or even worse, unimportant. So, I ask the rhetorical question: Just where does God say that He communicates only via writing? He did not drop the stone tablets in the midst of the Hebrews - He sent Moses to present and interpret the Decalogue.