I really don't get "Sola Scriptura"?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Chris W:

Well let’s have a look at other verses and perhaps we will be able to answer that question:

"It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’("Matt4, 4).

So we know everything wasn’t writen down, as you pointed out, yet we hear we are supposed to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

We have some of what Jesus said in the Gospels, but Jesus spoke figuratively and in parables throughout much of the gospels. But we read in the gospel of John that after Jesus’ passion, he would speak plainly to the Apostles:

"I have said this to you in figures; the hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures but tell you plainly of the Father. (John 16, 25)

Then we read, "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. (Acts1, 3).

So we know Jesus told the Apostles a time would come when He would speak plainly to them about the Father, and we know Jesus taught the Apostles for 40 days after His passion, yet we have no written record of what He said, even though these teachings could very well be the clearest, most comprehensive teachings of all.

The question then is: How could God expect us to live by His every word, if forty days worth of Jesus’ teachings were not written down in the Bible? Hmmm. There must be another way to learn the Word of God in addition to the Bible.

So getting back to the initial question, I’m gonna have to say, yes, the Bible does deride Sola Scriptura.

Look at Matthew 4.4 again - it’s an OT quotation, like Our Lord’s other replies:​

• Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

It’s a particularly striking use of Scripture, because it is a pointer to the evangelist’s purpose: he is presenting Jesus as the New Israel (as he did earler, in referring to the return from Egypt), being tested in the desert as Israel was, and as being the “son of God” just as Israel was - only much more fully so. Jesus is treading satan underfoot - just the basilisk and the adder are trodden underfoot in Psalm 90 - a psalm traditionally attributed to Moses, no less. This prepares the way for the presentation of Jesus as the New Moses, in the Sermon on the Mount.

As the first hearers & readers of that Gospel would probably have known. As such, the reply of Jesus is an affirmation of the authority of the OT, at least.

This Gospel is very carefully planned, even as a work of literature.

Any quotation can sound weird, if taken out of context. ##

 

[Exporter]

Sola Scriptura. You might imagine that such a belief system as Protestantism, which has as its cardinal doctrine that Scripture alone is authoritative in matters of faith, would first seek to prove that this cardinal doctrine met its own criteria. One would probably expect that Protestants could brandish hundreds of proof-texts from the Scriptures to support this doctrine — upon which all else that they believe is based. At the very least one would hope that two or three solid text which clearly taught this doctrine could be found — since the Scriptures themselves say, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (II Corinthians 13:1). Yet, like the boy in the fable who had to point out that the Emperor had no clothes on, I must point out that there is not one single verse in the entirety of Holy Scripture that teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There is not even one that comes close. Oh yes, there are innumerable places in the Bible that speak of its inspiration, of its authority, and of its profitability — but there is no place in the Bible that teaches that only Scripture is authoritative for believers. If such a teaching were even implicit, then surely the early Fathers of the Church would have taught this doctrine also, but which of the Holy Fathers ever taught such a thing? Thus Protestantism’s most basic teaching self-destructs, being contrary to itself. But not only is the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura not taught in the Scriptures — it is in fact specifically contradicted by the Scriptures (which we have already discussed) that teach that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians (II Thessalonians 2:15;

 

[Maccabees]

p90:

Thanks for your posts on Sola Scriptura in this thread. They are appreciated.

However, I would actually not recommend “Sola Scriptura!” I found the book to be rather unorganized due to the multiple authorship and it did not help in my understanding of the doctrine very much. I found Keith Mathison’s The Shape Of Sola Scriptura to be much more effective in this regard and would recommend it to any Catholic who wants to learn about Sola Scriptura.

~Matt

Here is nother observation about your contention that one interpretation of sola scriptura is better than the other one.
Isn’t that propostion self defeating in itslef. That there are multiple interpretations of sola scriptura. Now why would that be if it is to be found so clearly in the Bible. WEll its simple since this doctrine is not found in the Bible its leads to the possibility of there being many interpretationf of this man made doctrine that can’t be found in the Bible. Everything you need is in the Bible well except sola scritptura., Self defeating don’t you get it?
This should be explicitly in the Bible if this is the central tenet of Christianity. It’s not.

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

Isn’t that propostion self defeating in itslef. That there are multiple interpretations of sola scriptura. Now why would that be if it is to be found so clearly in the Bible.

I don’t argue that Sola Scriptura is found in the Scriptures itself. The idea is given much general support, but the best proof for the doctrine is a logical deduction from where God’s word is found today.

The problem with your argument is that it disproves your own position. There are people who interpret the commands of the Catholic Church differently than you, yet you wouldn’t consider the presence of either heretical or heterodox Catholics a refutation of your rule of faith as “self defeating”. If you would argue that those people aren’t really following the Catholic authority, why can’t I say that people who disagree with my definition of Sola Scriptura aren’t really following Sola Scriptura correctly?

Besides that, if you want me to take your post seriously, you need to demonstrate that “there are multiple interpretations of sola scriptura.” I only know of two, but I would gladly consider your documentation of additional, popular definitions. However, claiming that there are “multiple” without backing up such a claim will damage your credibility.

~Matt

 

[af3983]

If you take a look at the book of James, it states that you should hold tight to your traditions. Yet protestants almost didn’t include that book in the bible and see it as the epistle of straw, what ever that means. I find that the bible is sola scriptura until in contradicts something that thier church teaches. Then it becomes a matter of looking when that particular passage was written and to who because it wasn’t for us today

Amoung wolves that are dressed in sheeps clothing!

Amy

 

[Maccabees]

p90:

I don’t argue that Sola Scriptura is found in the Scriptures itself. The idea is given much general support, but the best proof for the doctrine is a logical deduction from where God’s word is found today.

The problem with your argument is that it disproves your own position. There are people who interpret the commands of the Catholic Church differently than you, yet you wouldn’t consider the presence of either heretical or heterodox Catholics a refutation of your rule of faith as “self defeating”. If you would argue that those people aren’t really following the Catholic authority, why can’t I say that people who disagree with my definition of Sola Scriptura aren’t really following Sola Scriptura correctly?

Besides that, if you want me to take your post seriously, you need to demonstrate that “there are multiple interpretations of sola scriptura.” I only know of two, but I would gladly consider your documentation of additional, popular definitions. However, claiming that there are “multiple” without backing up such a claim will damage your credibility.

~Matt

Yeah sola scriptura was so logical that it took 1500 years for it to be established. So logical that there is no unfied definition of sola scriptura.

Catholic orthdodoxy and heterodoxy is easy to follow refer to the cathechism of the catholic church is you agree your orthodox if you disagree your heterodox. A protestant will prove his orthodoxy from the bible his oponent from another denomination will prove his orthdodoxy from the Bible. So you will have a Lutheran and a Baptist both proving a basic tenet of the faith such as baptismal generation arguing orthodoxy and heterodoxy from the same Bible the same proof of truth that seemingly contradict itself. And no we don’t have more than one definition for basic tenets such as these you are the ones who have multiple definitions of sola scritptura.

Are you in such a state of denial you refuse to acknowledge the varieties of protestant denominations.
It would be difficult for me to express the many many takes on sola sciptura unless I talked to a represenetative of all 30,000 denominations. Like many aspects of protestantism they have multiple takes on the same issue. There a variety of confessions, articles, creeds. I don’t feel like writing a book a here I suggest you look at the major denominations confessions, creeds, articles etc they have their own take of sola scriptura some are subtle differences some are major.
THe major breaks in sola scriptura are
Lutheran, Clavinst, Anglican, Radical Reformation ie Anabaptist, Baptist etc
and after that they are mini breaks and alterations of those major breaks. Protestantism is impossible to define becuase of the thousands of version of supposed biblical truth. Give me you particular version of sola scriptura and we can dialogue on that supposed truth but I am not going to battlle dozens of takes on this supposed obvious deduction from scripture.
By the sheer number of definitions of like terms and thousands of denomination you are the one who needs some explaining to do.
Our church has printed its explanation for all the world to see the Cathechsim of the Catholic Church each catholic can determine if their own view agree or disagree with the church.
No protestant can do that with the Bible as their dozens of takes on any particular doctrine all supposedly proven and disproven by the same arbriter of truth - scripture.

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

Are you in such a state of denial you refuse to acknowledge the varieties of protestant denominations.

You made the claim about various definitions of Sola Scriptura. I am only explaining my experience with the doctrine in response to that, which is limited to two, popular definitions. The presence of multiple Protestant denominations does not equate to an equal number of definitions of Sola Scriptura.

Since you haven’t demonstrated that there are more than two definitions, your rhetoric is beginning to look like a poor cover for a lack of evidence on your part.

~Matt

 

[MariaG]

I Think many people do not understand exactly what Sola Scriptura actually is. Similar to some Catholics and Protestants not understanding what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches. Sometimes I see Catholics bashing Protestants over a mistaken definition of Sola Scriptura, the Protestant explaining and the Catholic coming back misunderstanding again. Reminds me of Catholics telling Protestants “No we don’t believe we earn our way to heaven” and them coming back and saying “Yes you do”.

I don’t agree with Sola Scriptura, but it is distressing to see others repeating the same mistakes and frustrations that we accuse non-Catholic Christians of doing to us.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[2heartsaz1]

MariaG:

… . Reminds me of Catholics telling Protestants “No we don’t believe we earn our way to heaven” and them coming back and saying “Yes you do”.

I don’t agree with Sola Scriptura, but it is distressing to see others repeating the same mistakes and frustrations that we accuse non-Catholic Christians of doing to us.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Agreed, Maria. Folks, let’s define and reference the term Sola Scriptura and honestly trace its history first. Otherwise we’re just walking in chaos.

Thanks Pastor Vince for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Maccabees]

p90:

You made the claim about various definitions of Sola Scriptura

. I am only explaining my experience with the doctrine in response to that, which is limited to two, popular definitions. The presence of multiple Protestant denominations does not equate to an equal number of definitions of Sola Scriptura.

Since you haven’t demonstrated that there are more than two definitions, your rhetoric is beginning to look like a poor cover for a lack of evidence on your part.

~Matt

I think you have access to the internet you could look these things up I don’t feel like typing a book. Since you have the research skills of a first grader let me point the way.

Luther’s definition is given at the Diet of Worms in 1521. This defnitnion is further rounded out by the Lutheran denomination by the Formula of Concord 1577 and the Ausburg confession.

Zwingli and Martin Bucher subscribed to their won view of sola scriptura which shows influence of Stoic or Spiritualist thinking their views can be found at the famous of Colloquy at Marburg debates with Luther…

Calvin was the most influential of the Reformed theologians . Read his take on Sola scriptura in the Institues of the Christian Relgiion. Vol. 1 Chapter VI-IX.

Some important reformed takes on this include The Belgic Confession of 1561. The Second Helvetic Confession of the Hungarian Reformed Church of 1566. The Second Helvetic Confession if a further development that goes beyond the other confessions.

OF course there is the Westminister Confession.

The Anglican views on sola scriptura can be found in the 39 articles of Relgion.

And this goes on and on and on . Look at the anabpatist the Baptist confessions all have their take on sola scriptura.

There are more than 2 definitions that you point out. Your simpleton view of things and lack of research is the only thing lacking here. I have a life here so I don’t feel like writings a book on the many views of sola scriptura. Just do the research yoursleflf and you find out the various takes on this doctrine that within 100 years of its invention had many different interpretations. Only your blindness keep you seeing the obvious weakness of sola scriptura.

Since there is no one defitntion of sola scriptura and there is no authratative voice speaking for protestantism. It i simpossible for the catholic to debate a postion in flux and everchanging and varies from denomination.
Is it is impossible to deabate the protestant postion of sola scriptura since their isn’t one.
Just put down what you beleive sola scriptura to be then we can move on but to say this is what sola scripttura is and not the other defnition is a flase premise. For another protestant woudl take the opposite postion. You simply have you own take on the matter among many many protestants have many postions on this. Like many things in protestantism their is no protestant agreement. The only thing they agree upon is their protesting of Mother church. Everytghin else is a chaos of doctrine.

 

[p90]

Maccabees:

I think you have access to the internet you could look these things up I don’t feel like typing a book.

Since you made the claim, surely you could provide three or four substantial examples? What you’ve provided here aren’t examples of significant differences; they’re just references to the works of the Reformers without any evidence that they actually disagree on Sola Scriptura. If you don’t have the time to back up your claims to even the first person who asks, consider that making them may not be in your best interests.

~Matt

 

[Maccabees]

Hey I have them I told you where you could find them. What more do you want?
You haven’t even given me one definition of your take on sola scriptura. How can I start a dialogue when I don’t know where you stand.
You yourslef acknowledge 2 defitnions.
You don’t think there are at least 2 more? How silly.
Pretty soon you going to tell me protestants have one unified creed.
Its like saying all protestants all agree on sola fide.
WEll on the surface they would say yes but dig a little deeper and it all depends on your defintion of faith others would argue saving faith.
Your argumentation that protestantism is a monolyth of the same defintions and beliefs is simply laughable you really need to get around a little.
There have many divisions in protestatnism on the supposed agreement of sola scriptura and sola fide.

 

[Maccabees]

As I am sure you know Inaddition to these older takes on sola scriptura modern evangelicals have a different take on sola scriptura than the reformer did. But even during the short time included here there was disagreement on sola scriptura. Again where do you stand where is you defintion? Your cowardice is deafning.:tsktsk:

A short article by Scott Windsor explains some differences.

Introduction

So many times the Catholic apologist, defending the Church’s position of authority is confronted by the Protestant argument of sola scriptura (Latin for “Scripture alone” or “Scripture only”). Whereas it is the position of the “apologist” to “defend,” at times a “good offense is necessary for a good defense.” This is one of those times. Catholics must be able to show the invalidity of sola scriptura. Two of the chief complaints of the Protestant apologists is that the Catholic neither understands the teaching of sola scriptura, nor does he properly represent the teaching. It is my goal through this article to use primary sources of the Protestant teaching(s) and then refute these teachings - or allow them to refute themselves (which they often do).

 

[Maccabees]

From the "Epitome of the Formula of Concord"

(subheading)
**Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm **
According to which all dogmas should be judged,
and the erroneous teachings [controversies]that have
occurred should be decided and explained in a Christian way.

*1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119, 105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1, 8. *

sw: First off we must “enlighten” the reader that Psalms 119:105 (118:105 in Catholic editions) only mentions “Thy Word” and does not stipulate whether that “Word” is written or spoken. Likewise, Galations 1:8 refers to the gospel that is “preached” - not to a written gospel! It would be an anachronism to insist upon this to be a “written gospel,” for at the time St. Paul wrote to the Galations most, if not all the Gospels had not been written yet! If we look objectively at St. Paul’s words here, he clearly refers to the oral tradition of preaching the gospel. Neither of these verses can be used to support “sola scriptura” - for neither of them refer to the written Word of God. sw: So, bearing in mind that we cannot use the out-of-context scripture references here - we must question the confession that demands we “believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard…are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.” That “standard” is not taught in Scripture, so if that standard is not taught in Scripture, then logically a teaching that demands “all dogmas with [all] teachers” are to be held to what is contained in the Scriptures, must be rejected. The sola scriptura of the Book of Concord is self-refuting.

 

[Maccabees]

From the Belgic Confession of the Reformed:

Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God We know him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse. Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

sw: Article 2 here flatly denies “sola” scriptura, for it says we know God by TWO MEANS! So much for “sola!” The first method of knowing God is through our own senses and our minds ponder the invisible things of God. The second method is through His holy and divine Word.

Article 3: The Written Word of God
We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of men, but that holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as Peter says.^1 Afterwards our God-- because of the special care he has for us and our salvation-- commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit this revealed Word to writing. He himself wrote with his own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures. ^1 2 Pet. 1:21

sw: This is all well and good about the testimony of what Scripture is - but it doesn’t tell us what Scripture DOES, and certainly doesn’t even mention “sola.”

Article 4: The Canonical Books
We include in the Holy Scripture the two volumes of the Old and New Testaments. They are canonical books with which there can be no quarrel at all. (Then lists the Protestant canon).

sw: So, where IN Scripture do we find this canonical list? We don’t. This is an extra scriptura teaching.

Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture
We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says–^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.
Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.
For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.
Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, “Test the spirits to see if they are of God,”^4 and also, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house.”^5
(Notes: ^2 Gal. 1:8 ^3 Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19 ^4 1 John 4:1 ^5 2 John 10)

sw: Well, here is the strongest argument in this confession used by Protestants who adhere to this confession. Let us look at it again - it is teaching “sufficiency” - not “sola!” Let us break this one down:

 

[Maccabees]

1) We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely

sw: Where do the Holy Scriptures themselves say they contain “the will of God completely?” Quite simply, they don’t. This is not a teaching found IN the Holy Scriptures, so it is itself an “extra scriptura” teaching.

2) and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it.

sw: Catholics do not argue against the sufficiency of Scripture - only against “Scripture alone.”

3) For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says–^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. (^2 refers to Galations 1:8).

sw: Galations 1:8 says: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Nothing here about Scripture! That’s about “preaching” or the “oral” teaching!

4) For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects. (^3 refers us to Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 22:18-19).

sw: Well, interestingly enough - there is no “Deuteronomy 12:32” - however, it seems 13:1 is what is referred to here: 13:1 - “Every command that I enjoin on you, you shall be careful to observe, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it.” Does this say “written command” or does it refer to “every command” (whether written or oral)? Whomever includes this footnote for support must be “adding to” this command, for it is not limited to what is inscripturated.

sw: Revelation 22:18-19 - “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone shall add to them, God will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the tree of life, and from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.” Again, context is important here. The context of these two verses is “this book,” meaning “The Book of Revelation” (or “The Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle”). “The Bible,” as we know it, was NOT assembled into a “book” form for quite some time. It would not be until the end of the 4th Century that the Church would finalize the canon for the Christian Church, which would later be made a dogmatic definition, after the Protestants attempted to remove several books from the Christian canon.

sw: Clearly this section from this confession is misguided, and the use of out-of-context quotes that do not even support what the confession is attempting to say destroys the credibility of the confession. The rest of this section is based on the false premise already exposed. The objective reader clearly must reject this.

sw: Again, Catholics do NOT deny the sufficiency of Scripture, we deny the false teaching, invented by men of the 16th Century that claim the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith (sola regula fide).

sw: One more thought, if “…all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself,” then why are we to trust the teaching in this Belgic Confession? Is this not written by such men, who are “liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself?” So much for the Belgic Confession.

 

[Maccabees]

Thirty-Nine Articles (Anglican)

Article 6: VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Let us break this down:
1) Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation.
sw: Fair enough. The Catholic Church would not deny that through the reading of the Scriptures one would find it sufficient enough to bring one to belief in Jesus Christ and ultimately to salvation. The Church does not deny that the Scriptures are A good source, only that the Scriptures are the ONLY (or sola) source.

2) So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be though requisite to salvation.
sw: OK, this brings us to the commonly echoed challenge to sola scriptura - if the teaching cannot be found in Scripture, then one who adheres to sola scriptura should reject it, right? Well, this very teaching is NOT found in Scripture! Nowhere do the Scriptures teach they are to be the “sole rule of faith” (sola regula fide) - so based on this premise of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, sola scriptura is self-refuting.

3) In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
sw: Well, again the problem cited in #2 - nowhere “within” the Scriptures do we find a list telling us what would constitute “those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament.” Since it cannot be read therein nor proved thereby - there is no infallible way of knowing exactly what constitutes the Scriptures. So, the very existence of a “Canon of Sacred Scripture” is an “extra scriptura” teaching. sw: So here we have it - the Anglican definition for sola scriptura is definitely found to be lacking - and even an invalid statement. No one should accept this as an article of their faith.

 

[Maccabees]

Westminster Confession of Faith

An added discussion took place on Sept. 10, 2003 in #CathApol between “BigScott” and “Jason1646” that (uneditted) discussion can be seen by: clicking here. Jason pointed out that I had left out a key part of the WCF, so I will address that now.

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church;[3] and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing:[4] which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6] Jason’s point was that I didn’t include this part that said “those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.” My question was:
where do we find, in scripture, that God has ceased revealing his Will to His people?
To this Jason answered, to the effect that private revelation is not part of the Articles of Faith (as we call them) thus he rejects such. I asked further:

but, just because something is not part of the Articles of Faith does not make it untrue or false.
and once the Church has authenticated a private revelation, we can accept it as truth - even if it has no bearing on our salvation, it is still an acceptable belief.
and the Church has the authority to authenticate such private revelations.
and takes said authority from the Scriptures themselves.
(snip)
Is His Will not continually revealed to His People through the instrument He established/built for His People? (the Church)
what is God’s Will regarding artificial fertilization of human embryos? Of cloning? Of birth control?
are these not moral issues that affect God’s People, here and now?
Yet, the Scriptures are silent on such issues.
with regard to birth control, many forms can be considered abortificants, thus equivalent to murder, but several other forms (barrier methods) are not abortificants.
btw- 100 years ago, virtually ALL of Protestantism stood side-by-side with Catholicism on birth control and abortion - but many/most Protestant communities now accept some forms of abortion and nearly all forms of birth control.
interesting, eh? Has God’s Will “changed” in the last 100 years? After about 20 minutes of silence, Jason parted the channel, with no response to this. I remain respectfully open to hearing a response to the above statements. Find me in the #CathApol Chatroom or contact me through one of the email lists that I moderate.

 

[Maccabees]

IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

sw: And whom are we to receive the Scriptures from? What body of Christians gathered the manuscripts and put them into canons of Old and New Testaments? How do we know, infallibly so, that the books that were assembled are indeed the canon? Did they miss some? Are some included that should not be? How do we, infallibly, know this?

*V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11] *

sw: So, “the full discovery of it (Scripture) makes it the only way of man’s salvation?” So, when for nearly 400 years the Church had not yet “fully discovered it,” what did those first Christians rely on? Consider the fact that it would be anywhere from 30-60 years before the New Testament was written - if Scripture is the only way of man’s salvation, what did the first Christians do? Consider also that the vast majority of all Christians prior to the invention of the printing press were functionally illiterate. If it were possible to hand them a “Bible” prior to this invention, they would not have understood a word of it, much less “fully discover” it.

sw: The basic question here is, “how do we know the Bible is the Word of God?” Those that do not allow that the Church had the authority to declare the Canon of Sacred Scripture generally respond (circularly) “We know it is the Word of God, because it is God breathed, (theopneustos).” And how do you know the Scriptures you have are theopneustos? “Because they say so.” (The WCF itself makes this unsupported claim in section IV, quoted above). So, because a document “claims” to be God-breathed, ipso facto, it is? The point here is, as any objective student of history must acknowledge, the Church established the Canon of Sacred Scripture. The Church, in council, decided which books belong and which ones do not. The Church is an outside authority that did indeed decide upon the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Maccabees]

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

sw: The Catholic does not contest the material sufficiency of Scripture. The Scriptures contain enough information to bring a man to salvation. This section actually denies sola scriptura as the sole rule of faith in acknowledging “there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence…” So, the WCF has allowed for a second regula fide in “the light of nature and Christian prudence,” and this second authority is “always to be observed.”

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16] sw: Section VII contradicts 2 Peter 3:16! St. Peter clearly states that the unlearned and the unstable would find some Scriptures hard to understand and to interpret them alone (sola scriptura) they do so “unto their own destruction.” Another obvious contradiction to this section is evidenced in other groups that have interpretted Scripture wrongly and have developed their own churches - yet still claim to be Christian. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses both claim to be Christian and base their beliefs on their interpretation of the Scriptures. If we accept the teaching that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them,” then we must accept the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses interpretations of Scripture to be just as valid as the Baptist or Lutheran (and many others) interpretation. Why should we accept the Baptist view over any other? How about the Lutheran view? How about the Anglican view?