For Protestants - Sola Scriptura from a different angle

[Salvatore123]

For those protestants who frequent this forum, (and I ask this respectfully and politely), what, exactly, do you think Jesus taught his Apostles when the Bible references Jesus in these ways:

John: 20:30: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.”

Acts 1:2-3: " . . .the apostles. . . to them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God."

There are several other references, but I think these two suffice for my question.

Remember - Christ spend 40 days, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, teaching/preparing the Apostles for their greatest duty in life - to spread God’s Word. If you read EVERYTHING recorded in writing that Jesus spoke, you would finish reading his quoted teachings/sayings in about 2 days (AT MOST).

And Jesus NEVER told anyone to write down one word He spoke.

What, exactly, leads you to believe that Jesus’s teachings are ALL in the Bible, when the Bible clearly states that ALL of his teachings are NOT in the Bible?

When you (and you MUST accept this as factual) accept the fact that the Apostles taught BY MOUTH those things taught to them by Jesus FROM HIS MOUTH during Pentecost, how do you KNOW, and what leads you to BELIEVE, that the ONLY things taught by Jesus were in writing in the Bible?

Again - no disrespect intended. I simply wanted a Protestant to explain sola scriptura from a different angle, especially given the literal interpretation the vast majority of them put on the Word of God and their conclusion that ALL of God’s word is contained in the Bible and is not to be found anywhere else.

I look forward to your responses.

 

[scottm]

What, exactly, leads you to believe that Jesus’s teachings are ALL in the Bible, when the Bible clearly states that ALL of his teachings are NOT in the Bible?

Huh? Strawman argument? I was a Protestant at a great many churches for a really long time, and I never met a single person who believe that everything Jesus taught got written down into the Bible. The closing verse of John’s gospel actually and explicitly says it isn’t so, and Protestants accept that verse.

 

[Salvatore123]

Well,

For this orthodox Catholic of the Latin Rite, I visited MANY Southern Baptist Churches before his wife’s conversion, and I assure you I heard it no less than the number of times I bothered to go (and there were many) that “EVERYTHING YOU NEED IS IN THE BIBLE” and “you don’t need to look anywhere else to reach the promised land” and “don’t listen to anyone other than God’s word (referring to bible in hand), lest you be led away from Jesus Christ, your personal Lord and Savior”.

Throw in, for good measure, a couple more ingredients such as “idol worship”, “cannibalism”, “Mary was Jesus’s mother - no more, no less”, and the fact that her own church was and is still, to this day, segregated (not one black member in the history of the church), and you don’t have a strawman - you have a true American Civil War byproduct whose members actually did not know how to respond when I asked “do you think Heaven is segregated too?”

If it is true, as you say (and as I do not know you, I can only assume you are telling the truth), why do protestants so reflexively reject the Catholic Church’s teachings of dogma not specifically “enumerated” some place in the bible? Coming from the South, I am not kidding when I say that I cannot remember the number of times (it is so many) that I was told “this (referring to bible in hand) is all you need - you don’t need to listen to some guy in Rome tell you how to talk to Jesus”.

 

[scottm]

For this orthodox Catholic of the Latin Rite, I visited MANY Southern Baptist Churches before his wife’s conversion, and I assure you I heard it no less than the number of times I bothered to go (and there were many) that “EVERYTHING YOU NEED IS IN THE BIBLE” and “you don’t need to look anywhere else to reach the promised land” and “don’t listen to anyone other than God’s word (referring to bible in hand), lest you be led away from Jesus Christ, your personal Lord and Savior”.

That’s not the same thing as “all of Jesus’ teachings are in the Bible.” A lawyer would immediately spot the difference.

If it is true, as you say (and as I do not know you, I can only assume you are telling the truth), why do protestants so reflexively reject the Catholic Church’s teachings of dogma not specifically “enumerated” some place in the bible? Coming from the South, I am not kidding when I say that I cannot remember the number of times (it is so many) that I was told “this (referring to bible in hand) is all you need - you don’t need to listen to some guy in Rome tell you how to talk to Jesus”.

I fully agree that Southern Baptists sincerely believe, and openly preach, exactly what you just said. The reason they do that is that Baptists have only the text of Bible. Nothing else. They have no binding creed. They have no binding commentary. They have no binding historic tradition. They have no apostolic lineage. They have nothing except the naked text of the Bible colored by each individual person’s own subjective interpretation. To suggest that they need anything else, or that a particular interpretation is binding, is to impose something foreign on them. You’d be imposing something upon them that they have never had before, and it will necessarily shake their world.

It’d be like imposing a one-political-party system upon the USA. As voters we expect the freedom to choose. The Southern Baptists interpret the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchical structures and the dogma that goes with it, as a denial of their inalienable right to freedom of choice. It’s that serious – doctrinal freedom is an inalienable right, in their eyes.

 

[mackbrislawn]

.

Remember - Christ spend 40 days, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, teaching/preparing the Apostles for their greatest duty in life - to spread God’s Word. If you read EVERYTHING recorded in writing that Jesus spoke, you would finish reading his quoted teachings/sayings in about 2 days (AT MOST).

And Jesus NEVER told anyone to write down one word He spoke.

What, exactly, leads you to believe that Jesus’s teachings are ALL in the Bible, when the Bible clearly states that ALL of his teachings are NOT in the Bible?

I feel this is an excellent post.

It has been pointed out that Protestants do read the verses where it says that not all Jesus said is in the Bible, but believe that everything we need to know for salvation is in the Bible. True, this is a slightly different thing.

Nevertheless, this ignores the question of why Jesus said and taught these things if they were to be forgotten and not used by future Christians. Seems like a waste of time and effort. Were these other things He taught not have important? No, that conclusion doesn’t seem logical to me. It seems more reasonable to me that these things were remembered and taught, in Tradition.

And when you cut off Tradition, and use only what happened to get written down, you are truncating the word of God.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Again - no disrespect intended. I simply wanted a Protestant to explain sola scriptura from a different angle, especially given the literal interpretation the vast majority of them put on the Word of God and their conclusion that ALL of God’s word is contained in the Bible and is not to be found anywhere else.

QUOTE]

Whether everything necessary for salvation is written down is a notion one takes one way or the other. I don’t know how this notion can actually be proven one way or the other. Of course, for various reasons, one can decide that everything needed is written down, but even so, it remains simply an an unproven assumption.

A dangerous assumption, because so many who make that assumption thereby remain ignorant of Tradition. And what did Peter say? That, “many ignorant and unstable twist the writings of Paul to their own destruction, as they do the rest of scriptures.”

This is a serious warning–those who do not know all the apostles taught, but simply go to the naked writings alone, run the severe risk of misunderstanding, to their destruction.

Biblical verses have a context which we must take into account when reading them, and so does the Bible itself have a context which we must take into account when reading it.

 

[Robbinson]

For those protestants who frequent this forum, (and I ask this respectfully and politely), what, exactly, do you think Jesus taught his Apostles when the Bible references Jesus in these ways:

John: 20:30: “Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.”

Acts 1:2-3: " . . .the apostles. . . to them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God."

There are several other references, but I think these two suffice for my question.

Remember - Christ spend 40 days, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, teaching/preparing the Apostles for their greatest duty in life - to spread God’s Word. If you read EVERYTHING recorded in writing that Jesus spoke, you would finish reading his quoted teachings/sayings in about 2 days (AT MOST).

And Jesus NEVER told anyone to write down one word He spoke.

What, exactly, leads you to believe that Jesus’s teachings are ALL in the Bible, when the Bible clearly states that ALL of his teachings are NOT in the Bible?

When you (and you MUST accept this as factual) accept the fact that the Apostles taught BY MOUTH those things taught to them by Jesus FROM HIS MOUTH during Pentecost, how do you KNOW, and what leads you to BELIEVE, that the ONLY things taught by Jesus were in writing in the Bible?

Again - no disrespect intended. I simply wanted a Protestant to explain sola scriptura from a different angle, especially given the literal interpretation the vast majority of them put on the Word of God and their conclusion that ALL of God’s word is contained in the Bible and is not to be found anywhere else.

I look forward to your responses.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was a protestant who became Catholic so I’m not speaking with a “protestant voice”. However, I think many protestants would say they feel they can trust, as the word of God, everything in the Bible but, as they don’t accept the doctrine of apostolic succession or infallibality of the Magesterium, don’t find trustworthy doctrines not expressly contained within scripture.

So - Catholics and Protestants (at leasts those protestants who accept scripture as the Word of God) agree on the trustwrothyness of everything the Protestant cannon (66 books). That is our common ground.

As Catholics, we also accept the 7 DC books and the oral traditions/teachings of the Magesterium (which together with scripture, make up our Deposit of Faith).

The biggest challenge to Protestant theology (and I think on sincere instrospection, many would agree this is its biggest challenge, if not vulnerability) is that it is based upon the assumption that either (i) scripture interpets itself (e.g., there is a plain meaning) or (ii) the Holy Spirit will guide us to the proper interpretation. Emprically, that doesn’t hold water given the 40,000 plus denominations all reading these words, all claiming guidance by the Holy Spirit, and yet coming to dramatically different understandings of numerous verses and doctrines.

Interestingly, God told us the Old Covenant was a “shadow” of things to come in the New Covenant and many of the Old Covenant feasts, laws and practices followed “patterns” repeated in the NT in a more complete and fulfilling way (e.g., the “Temple” was fulfilled by Christ whose body is our “temple”). Significantly, God created a system of authority in the Old Covenant - he gave Moses authority. Jesus recognized this authority in telling his disciples to “listen to the Pharasees” because they “sit in the Chair of Moses” - but he criticized the Pharasees for their hypocracy (do what they “say”, not as they “do”).

Its not surprising that the New Covenant fulfills this same “pattern”. Jesus expressly giving Peter and the apostles “authority” to bind and lose, to resolve disputes, to foregive sins. This “pattern” of authority was continued, I would say, because God knows how we are “wired” - we need authority to protect us from straying and it is the authority of the Church (tracing authority back to the apostles through apostolic succession) which preserves consistent teaching and avoids the “gross disunity of doctrine” which ultimatley was, sadly, the principle fruit of the Reformation.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[catholictiger]

this is one of my favorite homilies that refers to scripture

youtube.com/watch?v=fzbSeOoBXu0

one great thing he talks about is how we must have a authority and that authority is the church.

mentioning that god in his devine wisdom knew this.

he explains that when he talks only one message is coming out of his mouth but there are 1000 different opinions and different views of what my message is. This same thing occurs when you only read scripture different people will have different views of scripture.

 

[Robbinson]

this is one of my favorite homilies that refers to scripture

youtube.com/watch?v=fzbSeOoBXu0

one great thing he talks about is how we must have a authority and that authority is the church.

mentioning that god in his devine wisdom knew this.

he explains that when he talks only one message is coming out of his mouth but there are 1000 different opinions and different views of what my message is. This same thing occurs when you only read scripture different people will have different views of scripture.

Outstanding! Thanks for sharing this.

 

[JM3]

Whether everything necessary for salvation is written down is a notion one takes one way or the other. I don’t know how this notion can actually be proven one way or the other. Of course, for various reasons, one can decide that everything needed is written down, but even so, it remains simply an an unproven assumption.

A dangerous assumption, because so many who make that assumption thereby remain ignorant of Tradition. And what did Peter say? That, “many ignorant and unstable twist the writings of Paul to their own destruction, as they do the rest of scriptures.”

This is a serious warning–those who do not know all the apostles taught, but simply go to the naked writings alone, run the severe risk of misunderstanding, to their destruction.

Biblical verses have a context which we must take into account when reading them, and so does the Bible itself have a context which we must take into account when reading it.

St. Vincent of Lerins, in the fifth century, wrote:

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another… Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

From: The Teachings of the Church Fathers by John R. Willis, S.J.

 

[catholictiger]

Outstanding! Thanks for sharing this.

maybe you watched the video but for people he didn’t he said that there is only one way you can study scripture you must come to a understanding of scriputre by three things

that is

sacred scripture

sacred tradition

and magisterial teaching

these are like the trinity one can’t be on its it has to have the other two to be true

just like where there the father is, there is also the son and the holy spirit

where the son is there is also the father and the holy spirit

where the holy spirit is there is also the father and the son.

 

[Salvatore123]

Robbinson,

What you said about “self interpreting” is EXACTLY what I was hoping for (although you are now Catholic ).

Protestants do not realize what to me is so fundamental and basic:

1. Who, exactly, decided what books would be in the Bible? Once they start referring to councils, THEY HAVE AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPT SOMETHING EXTRA-BIBLICAL AS FAR AS AUTHORITY - HAVEN’T THEY?
2. WHERE in the Bible does it say HOW to interpret it? Nowhere. Again, with EACH interpretation, SOMETHING EXTRA-BIBLICAL IS GOING ON.

An inanimate object cannot “interpret itself” - that is impossible.

Although they may retort, "Well it is so obvious that so and so means . . . "

Really?

Then why did 70+ disciples of Christ leave him after the Eucharistic discourse in John, and CHRIST DID NOTHING TO STOP THEM? Don’t they find it the least bit odd that if Jesus did NOT intend to be taken literally as far as transubstantiation, he would have spoken up immediately and said something to the effect: “My friends - don’t leave. You have misunderstood me.” Why allow so many to leave under a mistaken impression, if, in fact, they were mistaken? Obviously, Christ spoke no true words than he did about his body and blood, and he never retracted or modified anything he said - whether followed or not, whether ridiculed or not, whether threatened with death or not.

To me, one of the plainest examples of the belief in the Eucharist as Catholics believe are the hundreds of martyrs who died under Nero and others for their beliefs. Why would any sane individual willingly be burned or eaten alive if all one had to do is say “this is just a symbol” or “Jesus was just a good man - not God”?

One thing the Protestant can never answer is how do they account for so many different interpretations of the Bible, and so many different “sects”, and yet they claim “there is only one way to Heaven”.

My response is always: “Really? And which way is that, and who decided THAT is the correct way?”

Again - the bible cannot “interpret” itself, because it does not speak. It requires not only reading, but also an understanding of things such as metaphors, parables, literal vs. symbolic teaching. And NONE of this is found IN the bible.

It is all “extra biblical”.

Funny how easy to denigrate Catholic “doctrine”, yet they follow “Calvinist doctrine”, “Wesleyan doctrine”, “Lutheran doctrine”, etc.

And they really believe that it makes perfect sense for God to have given his Word to his people, and then not ensure that his Word would be interpreted correctly, until 1500 years later. That is like putting a man in a desert without a map and saying “find your way out on your own”.

That, to me, would be pretty cruel, in both instances - especially when men DIED for what they believed and were taught by the Catholic Church.

One thing Protestants can never refute: the undeniable truth that the Catholic faith has stood the test of almost 2000 years. Now how does that happen without the protection of the Almighty?

 

[scottm]

Protestants do not realize what to me is so fundamental and basic:

1. Who, exactly, decided what books would be in the Bible? Once they start referring to councils, THEY HAVE AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPT SOMETHING EXTRA-BIBLICAL AS FAR AS AUTHORITY - HAVEN’T THEY?
2. WHERE in the Bible does it say HOW to interpret it? Nowhere. Again, with EACH interpretation, SOMETHING EXTRA-BIBLICAL IS GOING ON.

An inanimate object cannot “interpret itself” - that is impossible.

Although they may retort, "Well it is so obvious that so and so means . . . "

Really?

Yep, these are the arguments I use myself, although I wouldn’t impose any particular interpretation of John 6. I’d point out the fact of different interpretations in that chapter and numerous others.

And I’d point out the specific verses in the NT that say that the Apostles passed on oral traditions and wanted those traditions passed on for all time.

One thing the Protestant can never answer is how do they account for so many different interpretations of the Bible, and so many different “sects”, and yet they claim “there is only one way to Heaven”.

You’re mixing apples with oranges, counselor. The one way to heaven is the blood of Jesus, and it requires no particular church affiliation. A Southern Baptist can and would affirm without reservation that John Wesley (founder of the Methodist church) and Martin Luther (founder of the Lutheran church) and John Calvin (founder of the Reformed church) are in heaven right now.

One thing Protestants can never refute: the undeniable truth that the Catholic faith has stood the test of almost 2000 years. Now how does that happen without the protection of the Almighty?

The Orthodox Church is older than the Roman Church by a few decades, you know. And the Buddhist religion started 500 years before Jesus was born. The Hindu religion is older than King David. I suppose the Buddhists and Hindus also have the protection of God Almighty, on account of their great age.

 

[simspt]

If the the Bible keeps the Church in check and vice versa with proper interpretation then it seems that interpretation is the issue. Protestants simply deny the interpretation the Church uses to understand itself in relation to its writings and its salvific significance. The Rule of Faith is minimized or completely denied. IMO many Catholic and Protestant Biblical scholars have a lot more in common with each other because of their historical education with Christianity vs the typical Protestant lay person who again IMO does not know the history of their faith.

 

[inkaneer]

If the the Bible keeps the Church in check and vice versa with proper interpretation then it seems that interpretation is the issue. Protestants simply deny the interpretation the Church uses to understand itself in relation to its writings and its salvific significance. The Rule of Faith is minimized or completely denied. IMO many Catholic and Protestant Biblical scholars have a lot more in common with each other because of their historical education with Christianity vs the typical Protestant lay person who again IMO does not know the history of their faith.

But the Bible does not keep the church in check. Nowhere in scripture do you find that idea stated or expressed. Instead what you find is that the church is described as the pillar and foundation of truth, not scripture. And it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into the truth. So the Holy Spirit guides the Church which interprets the scripture. The Bible was never intended to be a self study course in christianity. That is a protestant perversion of the scriptures. Instead the Bible was intended to be used liturgically in the church in worship [The Mass].

 

[simspt]

But the Bible does not keep the church in check. Nowhere in scripture do you find that idea stated or expressed. Instead what you find is that the church is described as the pillar and foundation of truth, not scripture. And it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into the truth. So the Holy Spirit guides the Church which interprets the scripture. The Bible was never intended to be a self study course in christianity. That is a protestant perversion of the scriptures. Instead the Bible was intended to be used liturgically in the church in worship [The Mass].

There is no need for this principle to be explicitly stated in Scripture. As a Catholic you already know this. If a Catholic were to decide to reject a doctrine of the Catholic Church that is Biblically based then wouldnt you agree the Church would use the Bible as a standard to justify their doctrinal position along with Church precedent AKA rule of faith. In this sense the Bible does act as a kind of check on those within the Church and is no less authoritative. Why else would so much emphasis be put on Apostolicity of the NT writings during the canonization process.
I think Karl Rahner does a nice job relating scripture, authority and the Church when he states
B**]“The Church objectifies its faith and its life in written documents, and it recognizes these objectifications as so pure and so successful that they are able to hand on the Apostolic Church as a norm for future ages.”**I agree with you that " the church is described as the pillar and foundation of truth, not scripture. And it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into the truth." but I don’t think this contradicts the view that Scripture also has a normative function as well as being authoritative and the two are not and can not be contradictory.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The Orthodox Church is older than the Roman Church by a few decades, you know. And the Buddhist religion started 500 years before Jesus was born. The Hindu religion is older than King David. I suppose the Buddhists and Hindus also have the protection of God Almighty, on account of their great age.

That’s right. However, the Jewish religion is the oldest of all, going back all the way to Adam and Eve.

 

[scottm]

That’s right. However, the Jewish religion is the oldest of all, going back all the way to Adam and Eve.

Well, yes, but equally we could say Adam and Eve were Moslem or Christian, or both Moslem and Christian, as all three religions claim them. My point was that if the age of a religion indicates God’s blessing upon it, then the Hindu and Buddhist religions are very blessed by God. I don’t have a problem with saying that, but I just wanted to be clear that that’s what we’re saying.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Well, yes, but equally we could say Adam and Eve were Moslem or Christian, or both Moslem and Christian, as all three religions claim them. My point was that if the age of a religion indicates God’s blessing upon it, then the Hindu and Buddhist religions are very blessed by God. I don’t have a problem with saying that, but I just wanted to be clear that that’s what we’re saying.

Well, yes. But the Jewish religion would be the oldest, because nothing can be older than Adam and Eve.

 

[scottm]

We’re off on a tangent but you’re skipping the obvious: Moslems consider Adam and Eve and Abraham and Jacob/Israel and Moses and David and the rest, to have been Moslems. What we call the “Old Testament” is their heritage. It’s their book too. Adam and Eve are in the Koran. Abraham, Lot, The Twelve Tribes of Israel, Moses, David, Solomon – they’re all in the Koran too, and the “Old Testament” is specifically referenced in the Koran.