Does Sola Scriptura need to state as such?

[JRKH]

By far the strongest argument against Sola Scriptura is the fact, well known and undisputed, that the different churches who agree on that can hardly agree on anything else. In other words, once they decide that the only authority is sacred scripture, as they read it, especially the ones who agree that scripture is not meant for purely private interpretation, they can’t agree on what the interpretation IS.

It only makes sense that having given us the written word, God also gave us a guide to using the Word. Sure enough, He did! The Church.

You’ve said what I’ve been trying to say so much better and more concise…Bravo.

Peace
James

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Hi RedDawg,

Thank you - Sola Scriptura. See what I mean?

All traditions have to have a singular authority of truth, which is why Scripture is used; otherwise it becomes relative… I don’t care what Christian religious umbrella one falls under. The key is does the tradition match up with the Scripture and when you can answer that, then you have come to the knowledge of the truth, which is anything that proceeds from the mouth of God and is accurately represented. That in and of itself is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit working in the life of the Christian. There are not that many Christians out there compared to the number of people calling themselves Christian according to Scripture and God.

God bless you. S69

Nice try Sonny but ummm, if those verses were so perspicacious why do we have 30,000plus Protestant denominations almost none of whom, if any, profess Mary’s perpetual virginity.

BTW The first Protestant Martin Luther never gave up that particular doctrine.

 

[porthos11]

May I suggest that you read Psalm 119. It is the longest of the Psalms, but will speak for itself and Scripture does speak for itself as you will find out. Because that Psalm is so long, may I also suggest that you meditate and read it a few times to allow the work of God to take hold.

But why should I or anyone else? Before I even ascribe authority to Psalm 119 or any other text in the Bible, why should I even accept that Psalm 119 is of any value whatsoever?

 

[porthos11]

Thank you; you just proved the point - Sola Scriptura. There has to be a single authority for truth and that authority is the Scripture. You all are Sola Scriptura’s anddon’t even realize it. Everyone - have great day and may god’s word stand forever…so be it! S69

The authority is Scripture, but what’s the basis for such a claim? Why should I believe you or anyone who claims that the Bible is God’s word?

 

[Ignatius]

The authority is Scripture, but what’s the basis for such a claim? Why should I believe you or anyone who claims that the Bible is God’s word?

Because The Catholic Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, at the Council of Rome in AD 382 declared it so! It also declared which are and which are not the God Inspired books of The New Testament. So, these New Testament Scriptures on which Protestants depend, were collected, Canonized, and preserved through 16 centuries before there ever was a protestant church.

 

[porthos11]

Because The Catholic Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, at the Council of Rome in AD 382 declared it so! It also declared which are and which are not the God Inspired books of The New Testament. So, these New Testament Scriptures on which Protestants depend, were collected, Canonized, and preserved through 16 centuries before there ever was a protestant church.

Please let the Protestant answer the query; he makes the assertion, he therefore has the burden of proof.

 

[EricFilmer]

May I suggest that you read Psalm 119. It is the longest of the Psalms, but will speak for itself and Scripture does speak for itself as you will find out. Because that Psalm is so long, may I also suggest that you meditate and read it a few times to allow the work of God to take hold.

So if I prayerfully read Psalm 119 a few times, the work of God will lead me to seeing Sola Scriptura being taught in it? Psalm 119 tells me that the Psalmist delighted in the Torah (“law”) and thanked God for it. But it does not tell me that Scripture is the only foundation for the formulation of doctrine. And if God truly intended for Psalm 119 to teach Sola Scriptura, then why didn’t he simply have the Psalmist write the actual principle of Sola Scriptura in that psalm? Like you said, it’s the longest of the Psalms, so there was plenty of room for it. Why do people have to meditate upon it to discern Sola Scriptura as if it is some sort of hidden riddle?

For the record, I have read Psalm 119 prayerfully not just a few times, but several times over the course of a number of years. It has never revealed to me that Scripture is to be the only source for the formulation of doctrine. It also occurred to me that this Psalm was written before the re-discovery and promulgation of Deuteronomy, and also predates all the books of the Prophets (and many other Old Testament books) as well as the entire New Testament. So if Psalm 119 teaches Sola Scriptura then that means we should not use any Scripture written after it.

Furthermore, Jews have been prayerfully reading Psalm 119 for approximately 3000 years. How do you account for the fact that the “work of God” never led them to formulate the teaching of Sola Scriptura? Moreover, literally billions of Catholics and Orthodox Christians have been prayerfully reading Psalm 119 for 2000 years, and yet the “work of God” did not led them to formulating Sola Scriptura either.

The simple fact is that if ther is no single authority of truth; then all becomes relative and that is the world in which we live today. You will never find a single man-made “Christian” tradition that a man does not claim is within Scripture.

This sounds like a good argument for why the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is needed to officially interpret Divine Revelation for each generation.

The word Scripture is the written, yes writen word of God. If you study its usage; you wll find that Scripture has different names, such as the “word,”. the “law and the prophets”, just as Jesus has different names such as King of Kings or Lord of Lords, or :Good Shepherd". I said this because the Scripture has, as you will notice in your study, a personality associated with it because it is “God breathed”.

Concerning the usage of the term “God breathed” which appears in some modern Protestant English Bibles, see this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7303916&postcount=8

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

One example found in Hebrews is “sharper than a two-edged sword and able to pierce” or you will often see the “Scriptures says” and the like.

Yes, Scripture says that Scripture is extremely important and powerful. But Scripture does not say that Scripture is the only foundation for doctrine.

I see that you are kinda putting up billboards all over as though you are seeking some truth. These are really distractions, so rather than looking all over the place; why not look at Jesus? What was Jesus continually saying when He was tempted in the wilderness? “As it is written” What was HIs ultimate statement? Man shall not live on bread alone, but by…you know the rest.

I look to Jesus and everything that he has revealed: Scripture and Tradition. I also look to the Church when I look to Jesus, seeing as he is the Head of the Church, and Paul teaches that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

What did Paul use in many of His defenses, a “word of the Lord came” or “as it is written” and the Apostle Peter you will find the same and John probably quoted the OT Scriptures more than anyone else as a % of what He wrote.

If Paul believed in Sola Scriptura, why didn’t he actually teach it? He taught at length about other subjects, didn’t he?

I do not allow myself to get bogged down with things outside of what God has revealed in the knowledge and love of Him through the written word.

And yet you believe in Sola Scriptura which is outside what God revealed in the written word. As I have stated before, if God intended for people to follow Sola Scriptura, why didn’t he simply have ONE prophet dedicate ONE verse in the Bible to clearly express it?

You must remember that Christianity in its purest form is a one-on-one relationship with Christ and that most of those who name his name do not have a one-to-one relationship with Jesus. How do I know this? Jesus said it was like that; He said many would follow deceitful spirits in his name. He said few that call on His name will find Him. This is why you see all of this confusion over religion and other things. Focus on your one-to-one relationship; that is where wisdom and understanding and love will resonate.

So because I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura you conclude I don’t have a proper one-on-one relationship with Jesus?

God bless you and I hope you find the truth that you are seeking in Christ and no other. S69

Thanks Sonny, and I wish the same for you.

 

[Casotlga]

Hello All,
I am the new guy so please be patient with me.
Sola Scriptura is to be found in many places in the Holy Word.
Several for starters;
John 12:48 Jesus states His word will judge us on the last day, not men or the traditions of men.
And, the clincher for me, Rev 22:18-19. I believe it is no accident that these verses are of the last in the bible and refer to all the Book, not just Revelation.
True, Moses wrote the same thing in Deut, however he was referring to the Torah which was never added to.
BTW I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, just a true believer in Jesus.

 

[porthos11]

Hello All,
I am the new guy so please be patient with me.
Sola Scriptura is to be found in many places in the Holy Word.
Several for starters;
John 12:48 Jesus states His word will judge us on the last day, not men or the traditions of men.
And, the clincher for me, Rev 22:18-19. I believe it is no accident that these verses are of the last in the bible and refer to all the Book, not just Revelation.
True, Moses wrote the same thing in Deut, however he was referring to the Torah which was never added to.
BTW I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, just a true believer in Jesus.

I posit the same question to you then. On what authority do you state that John, Revelation and Deuteronomy are the inspired Word of God to begin with?

And no matter any protestations to the contrary, anyone who adheres to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura is Protestant.

 

[JRKH]

Hello All,
I am the new guy so please be patient with me.

Weclome to Catholic answers.

Sola Scriptura is to be found in many places in the Holy Word.
Several for starters;
John 12:48 Jesus states His word will judge us on the last day, not men or the traditions of men.

The verse in question says this:
He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him–the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

The Word I have spoken (not written) will judge you. In fact, in the entire passage Jesus is refering to what he says and what people hear. These words and teachings he imparted orally to His apostles who passed them on to others. Some of these were written down and eventually gathered into the Bible, which along with the Tradition of the Church protects and maintians the True Gospel.

This same Gospel, also contains the verse in John 21:25 that there were many other things that Jesus did that were not written down.

At best you could use the above verse to support Prima Scriptura, but not Sola Scriptura.

And, the clincher for me, Rev 22:18-19. I believe it is no accident that these verses are of the last in the bible and refer to all the Book, not just Revelation.

Sorry but this does not fly on any one of several points.

1. The Bible is not “a book”, it is a Canon of Books, a series of books, a compilation of books. Johns reference is to book (singular) not books (plural)
2. When John wrote Revelation the NT had not yet been gathered and canonized and would not be for another 300 years. So if Johns reference to all the books in the eventual canon then who, in the intervening 200+ years could know which was which? Some churches used books eventually rejected while others did not use books that were eventually accepted. In fact Revelation was not used by a fair majority of the Church and just barely made it into the canon.
3. Finally and most significantly, If we wish to take your statement as true, then which of the (at least three) different canons is the one John refers to? The Western Church codified a canon of 73 books between 382 and approx 420 AD. This is the canon used in the RCC church to this day. The Eastern Church used a canon of nearly 80 books stemming from at least the 380-400 AD date and likely earlier. The Protestants set the canon from 73 to 66 books some 1100 years later by first moving some of the OT books to a seperate section and then eventually dropping them altogether.
   If your assertion is taken as true and John is refering to the entire canon, then it appears it must be one or the other of the earlier canons - the ones that were used by the Universal Christian Church for more than 1000 years before the reformation came along.
   Either that or God did not protect the canon of Scripture for that thousand plus years that it was wrong…

Sorry if any of the above sounds snarky, I don’t intend it that way, but we’ve answered this assertion about Rev 22:18-19 many times before.

I hope as you reflect on what I have written above you will see how untenable it is to say that the statement in Revelation applies to the entire canon.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hello All,
I am the new guy so please be patient with me.
Sola Scriptura is to be found in many places in the Holy Word.
Several for starters;
John 12:48 Jesus states His word will judge us on the last day, not men or the traditions of men.
And, the clincher for me, Rev 22:18-19. I believe it is no accident that these verses are of the last in the bible and refer to all the Book, not just Revelation.
True, Moses wrote the same thing in Deut, however he was referring to the Torah which was never added to.
BTW I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, just a true believer in Jesus.

Casotlga,
As a follow up on my previous post concerning the differing and ancient canons I direct you to THIS THREAD. It is a very fine thread demonstrating the variations in the ancient accepted canons of Scripture.
As you read through the discussion you will find that your understanding of Rev 22:18-19 applying to the entire canon did not come along until well after the Protestant Reformation.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I posit the same question to you then. On what authority do you state that John, Revelation and Deuteronomy are the inspired Word of God to begin with?

And no matter any protestations to the contrary, anyone who adheres to Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura is Protestant.

Not to derail the thread, but I have no problem with someone saying that they are not “protestant” assuming they have never been a part of the Catholic Church to begin with and has not really taken the time to learn the Truths of the Church.
In the case of such people - What are the Protesting??

The Catechism even makes a distinction in para 817 when it says,
*…one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… *

That said, I do understand why you made the statement I bolded. The faith tradition that is most influencing Casotlga (Sola Scriptura) stems from the Protestant Reformation whether his particular faith community embraces that connection or not.

Peace
James

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Just to somewhat return the thread to topic. I read this article not long ago and it struck me as fitting perfectly into this discussion.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It’s a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns “teaching as doctrines human traditions.” This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly “adding” to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the “merely human works” of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 7:6-8[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Casotlga]

How about Matt 4:4, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. What does this mean?
The problem with adding to the Word of God, who is authorized to do so?
If any church or church leader does, how are we to know what is inspired and what isn’t?

How can a person be labeled “protestant” if one is not protesting?
I consider myself Catholic, but not Roman.

 

[Casotlga]

Another question, How is one to view the Bible, is it to be taken for the holy inspired word of God?
Is the Bible infallible, to be taken literally, at face value?
If sola scriptura isn’t valid, what is to be added?
And by whom?
Lets avoid translation controversy and refer only to the Douay version.

 

[porthos11]

How about Matt 4:4, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. What does this mean?
The problem with adding to the Word of God, who is authorized to do so?
If any church or church leader does, how are we to know what is inspired and what isn’t?

How can a person be labeled “protestant” if one is not protesting?
I consider myself Catholic, but not Roman.

Still you claim the Bible as inspired, like Matthew in this case. But why should Matthew be even considered the inspired Word of God? Before you should even quote anything from the Bible, you need to prove that it is indeed inspired, but you have not done so.

What’s your proof that the Bible is inspired?

 

[porthos11]

Another question, How is one to view the Bible, is it to be taken for the holy inspired word of God?
Is the Bible infallible, to be taken literally, at face value?
If sola scriptura isn’t valid, what is to be added?
And by whom?
Lets avoid translation controversy and refer only to the Douay version.

You tell us, and back it up with proof. I make no claims, but you just said that the Bible is inspired. You made the assertion, please provide the proof. Why should we believe you or anyone who claims that the Bible is the Word of God?

 

[JRKH]

How about Matt 4:4, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. What does this mean?

So tell me what constitutes, “…every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”?
Is “Every word” of God contained in the Bible?
Did Christ leave us an authoritative Book or an authoritative Church?

The problem with adding to the Word of God, who is authorized to do so?

Good question. How about subtracting from the “Word of God” (the Bible canon) Who is authorized to do that?
The 66 book canon commonly used by non-catholic Christians was never arrived at by council but by the action of one man - namely Luther. By contrast the other canons are ancient and were arrived at by council and reaffirmed, unchanged by multiple subsequent councils.

If any church or church leader does, how are we to know what is inspired and what isn’t?

Ah - Now we are to the crux of the matter. As I have already shown in an ealrier post, there are several widely accepted bible canons in use among Christians in the world. The EO has one canon, the RCC has another and the Protestant have a third. All of these contain the passages commonly used by SS adherants to claim sufficiency of the bible canon (usually the smallest, 66 book canon)
So - indeed - how do we know what is ispired and what is not…
By looking at how the canon’s were arrived at and the Church authority that assembled them. It is by the authority of the Ancient Church that we know what is inspired and what is not.

How can a person be labeled “protestant” if one is not protesting?

My point exactly. You are not protesting…However, the tradition that you are following (Sola Scriptura) is very much a product of the Protestant Reformation and the term “Protestant” is often and widely appied to those who hold to these traditions.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

It seems to me that when the term “Sola Scriptura” is used, most people think only of the New Testament.

I think you are right. It speaks to the ignorance of the persons who are using this modern innovation.

 Didn’t Jesus quote Scripture?  Didn’t the Apostles teach from Scripture?  Didn’t Paul use Scripture in his teachings?  Keep in mind, the Bereans  “searched the scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11).

Yes, of course! Refraining from pushing the scriptures into a role they were never meant to play does not lessen their value. Indeed, the Church has always used them for prayer, defens of the faith, and all the activities mentioned in Tim - correction, reproof, training in righteousness.

The Church has always read and prayed the scriptures daily. The famous Catholic biblical scholar Jerome wrote “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

Even Jesus urged the hypocrites of His day to “search the scriptures” (John 5:39).

No, Cachonga, he was commenting on their actions. He was pointing out that they search the scriptures in search of the Messiah, but refuse to come to Him, so that they can be saved. This is actually an arguement AGAINST sola scriptura. The Scriptures cannot save us, only Jesus can, and He is not confined to them.

using Randy Carson’s “interpretation”, there is still the problem of 2 Thes 2:15 (the traditions Paul taught could be learned orally from him, OR by reading his letters).

IT is only a problem if the reader misunderstands the text. There was never any effort made to commit the entire doctrine of the faith to the Scriptures. Paul passed on the anamnesis, but did not write about it to them.

I did notice that nobody answered my question – Where is the trustworthy statement that anything else is equal to Scripture? please provide the trustworthy source for this assertion.

I think the answer to this might be found in why Jesus established a Church, instead of writing books, or commanding that the Apostles write books.

Another part of the answer can be found when you ask yourself, who is responsible for equipping the saints for the work of the ministry?

I have not finished reading the thread, so you may have already been given the answers to your question.

1 Tim 3:15-16
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

HOw can the Church hold up the Truth, if the Church is not divinely enabled to do so? How can fallible members of the household of God become the pillar and support of Truth apart from God’s grace making it happen?

I would consider Jesus, the Apostles, or Scripture to be a trustworthy source (I do not accept “because the Church says so” as a trustworthy answer).

Why is that? How and when did Jesus fail in His promise to lead the Church into all Truth? Why was He so weak or disinterested in the flock He formed that he abandoned them, and left them orphaned - at least until 1600 when SS could be invented.

Your perspective requires that we believe Jesus did not keep His word to the Church.

I won’t even comment on Dave Armstrong’s 10 steps (comparing the US Constitution with the Holy Scriptures! Talk about comparing apples & oranges!).

According to beth40n2, the Bible was canonized in the 4th century (I’m guessing the reference are the councils of Hippo and Carthage, which were provincial councils.  Since when does a provincial council “speak” for the entire Church?  Also, how did they define the dueterocanonical books?).

No, but it is good that you are learning about Church History. It will straighten out some of the misinformation you have received.

You are correct that the councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial councils. That is one of the reasons that an Ecumenical council was needed to close the canon.

The Church adopted the Alexandrian Septuagint, which was the collection of books used by Jesus and the Aposltes. The Deuterocanonicals were part of this collection.

Why did the Church wait until the council of Trent to declare the dueterocanonical books as “God-breathed”?

For the same reason the Church waited until 382 AD to form the NT canon. The Church does not make pronouncements unless and until there is rampant heresy.

Also, Peter refers to the writings of Paul as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). If the Apostle Peter recognizes Paul’s writings as Scripture, wouldn’t that be part of the tradition of the Church?

Absolutely.