Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[paul_c]

I’ll answer your question concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus. All honor and glory goes to God; for it is God that saved Mary and God that gave her the PRIVEDGE to carry the redeemer of all Christians in her womb. Just as all the saints make up the body of Christ, Jesus made it clear that not one part of the body is more or less important than any other MEMBER. Glory to God! May HIs grace be with you!

Sonny, It was St. Paul, not Jesus that used the analogy of the Church being the body of Christ. See 1Corinthians 12: And while he makes the point that all the members of the body are important and are necessary to the function of the church, he also recognizes that some deserve more honor than others. He even lists them in order:

28 Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; 6 second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds?
30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?
31 Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

The bible does not {SAY} anything ! Herein lies the clue !

Peace,

I posted that hoping that I would be the first one to have asked that, but then I went back and, alas, someone else mentioned the missing table of contents… the table of contents that we relied on Tradition to have.

Peace,

 

[paul_c]

The fact is, we all need some link to God.

For Catholics, it is the continued word of mouth passed down from apostle to bishop to bishop to priest to us. Sometimes they wrote those things down. some became scripture, some simply the works of the church fathers, others pastoral letters.

But protestants deny the authority of the church to preach the gospel of the lord. But yet they need some link to him and the only thing left to them is scripture (ignoring the fact that scripture was developed by the Catholic Church as a teaching and liturgical aid).

As I said on another thread, Protestants MUST defend sola scriptura because it is the only link to God that they are comfortable with, having walked away from the Catholic Tradition. Only when they submit to the authority of the Church, can they drop sola scriptura.

In the end, its all about authority and the linkage to God.

 

[B79]

Dear Haparker,

If Scripture is so very “self-authenticating,” why did no one believe that it is until the 1500s?

Moreover, if Sola Scriptura were true, then no one knew the truth of God’s revelation until a few hundred years AFTER the time of Christ (since the New Testament had not yet been compiled by the Catholic Church). But I thought that Christ came to tell us the truth from God… indeed, that He IS “the way, the truth, and the life.” Did none of it become true until someone wrote it all down??

With all charity, I’m afraid your error is as much historical as it is theological. You need to study the history of Christianity and read what the early Christians believed. As the great Cardinal John Henry Newman said, “To delve deeply into history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[Glennonite]

Allow me to step in. The problem I see is that the Catholic and Protestant sides of the debate are speaking two different “languages.” Let’s move the argument to a common language shall we? Logic. Argumentation. If it doesn’t work in a formal debate, it doesn’t work here, ok? This means that the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim, since it is impossible to prove a negative. The duty of the negative side is to refute the positive arguments and not to prove a negative.

This sound fair? Ok! Second round! Ding ding! Fight!

Cool.

Glennonite

 

[Ignatius]

ZDHyden:

Allow me to step in. The problem I see is that the Catholic and Protestant sides of the debate are speaking two different “languages.” Let’s move the argument to a common language shall we? Logic. Argumentation. If it doesn’t work in a formal debate, it doesn’t work here, ok? This means that the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim, since it is impossible to prove a negative. The duty of the negative side is to refute the positive arguments and not to prove a negative.

Glennonite

According to Sola Scriptura, for a doctrine to be True, it must be found in the Bible Alone; i.e. For Sola Scriptura to be true it must be found in The Bible Alone. The most the bible says of itself is that it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training, it doesn’t even claim to be (and is not) the only thing that is profitable for teaching, etc. Sola Scriptura is, therefore, a false, extra-biblical, man made doctrine.

 

[haparker321]

If Scripture is so very “self-authenticating,” why did no one believe that it is until the 1500s?

That really begs the question, you’re assuming that SS was non-existent which hasn’t been proven.

Moreover, if Sola Scriptura were true, then no one knew the truth of God’s revelation until a few hundred years AFTER the time of Christ (since the New Testament had not yet been compiled by the Catholic Church).

That’s not what I said in the OP.

Parker

 

[pablope]

I’ll answer your question concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus. All honor and glory goes to God; for it is God that saved Mary and God that gave her the PRIVEDGE to carry the redeemer of all Christians in her womb. Just as all the saints make up the body of Christ, Jesus made it clear that not one part of the body is more or less important than any other MEMBER. Glory to God! May HIs grace be with you!

Thanks, but no thanks…sorry, I was not asking you a question and you do not need to tell me anything about Mary.

Tell you what, I have a challenge for you: Why not ask the devil why he said this, see the bolded and in blue:

[SIGN]Fr. Amorth says such extraordinary occurrences are rare but on the rise.

Not surprisingly, ‘Jesus Christ’ is the name Fr. Amorth most often calls upon to expel demons. But he also turns to saintly men and women for their heavenly assistance. Interestingly, he said that in recent years one man – Blessed Pope John Paul II – has proved to be a particularly powerful intercessor.

And the most powerful intercessor of all?

“Of course, the Madonna is even more effective. Ah, when you invoke Mary!”

“And, once I also asked Satan, ‘but why are you more scared when I invoke Our Lady than when I invoke Jesus Christ?’ He answered me,** ‘Because I am more humiliated to be defeated by a human creature than being defeated by him**.” [/SIGN]

This way, you will know something about Mary, if you do not believe Catholics, at least from the devil himself.

 

[ZDHayden]

That really begs the question, you’re assuming that SS was non-existent which hasn’t been proven.

One cannot logically prove a negative. Therefore, you must prove that Sola Scriptura was believed in before Martin Luther introduced it. Logically, that should be far easier than the impossibility of proving a negative.

 

[pablope]

That really begs the question, you’re assuming that SS was non-existent which hasn’t been proven.

That’s not what I said in the OP.

Parker

Then prove it, cite anyboby, any Catholic prior to your grandfather Luther who believed or practiced SS.

 

[paul_c]

Then prove it, cite anyboby, any Catholic prior to your grandfather Luther who believed or practiced SS.

And remember, we all think that scripture is valuable for teaching and liturgical purposes. That’s why the Church created it. So giving us a list of Church Fathers who found scripture valuable does not prove sola scriptura. That in itself is the mark of a Catholic.
To prove sola scriptura, you would have to be able to show that the predominant Christian view, held by the Popes, was that all that was necessary for salvation was in scripture. Such a view point is contradictory, however, because you are looking for acredidation from men not from a book. This is natural because a book commands no authority and it can’t defend its statements. It is rather, a reference guide

 

[pablope]

And remember, we all think that scripture is valuable for teaching and liturgical purposes. That’s why the Church created it. So giving us a list of Church Fathers who found scripture valuable does not prove sola scriptura. That in itself is the mark of a Catholic.
To prove sola scriptura, you would have to be able to show that the predominant Christian view, held by the Popes, was that all that was necessary for salvation was in scripture. Such a view point is contradictory, however, because you are looking for acredidation from men not from a book. This is natural because a book commands no authority and it can’t defend its statements. It is rather, a reference guide

You got to my post too soon…i was going to edit it and first ask for a definition of SS from an official protestant document, which I think we have not pinned down yet?

 

[kepha1]

According to Sola Scriptura, for a doctrine to be True, it must be found in the Bible Alone; i.e. For Sola Scriptura to be true it must be found in The Bible Alone. The most the bible says of itself is that it is

(1)profitable for teaching,
(2) reproof,
(3) correction,
(4) training,
it doesn’t even claim to be (and is not) the only thing that is profitable for teaching, etc. Sola Scriptura is, therefore, a false, extra-biblical, man made doctrine.

*Understanding the four senses of Scripture will provide you with an interpretive key for unlocking many spiritual treasures in the Word of God. They can help you draw vital connections between the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Catholic Faith, and your own spiritual life. With this approach, we see more clearly that the events and people mentioned in the Bible are not distant realities, far removed from our day-to-day experience in the 20th century, but rather they are intimately linked to our own Christian lives and serve as models. *

*Traditionally, there are four senses of Scripture, which are outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 115-119: *

1. 
   *]Literal Sense: “[T]he meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture” (Catechism, no. 116), the actual event, person, thing described in the biblical text. The literal sense gives rise to the following three “spiritual senses.”
   *]Allegorical Sense: How those things, events, or persons in the literal sense point to Christ and the Paschal Mystery.
   *]Moral Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian life in the Church.
   *]Anagogical Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian’s heavenly destiny and the last things.
   
   Making “Sense” Out of Scripture
   
   The “reformers” rejected all this in favor of a more literal approach, and ignored 2 Tim 3:16.
   2 Tim 3:14-15 are ignored by defenders of SS because of its reference to Tradition, which is named first, (remember what you have learned) and the reference to the Magisterium (from whom you have learned it) which is listed second. Scripture is listed third. This is not a priority list. The three are inseparable until somebody comes along and invents something akin to a one legged stool.

 

[kepha1]

These are not two ‘separate and distinct’ definitions here; it’s a distinction between what a person “thinks” Sola Scriptura means and what “is” the definition of Sola Scriptura. I own a copy of Keith Mathison’s book, and he makes a point about the watered down definition of the Scriptural Authority and the original intent. His battling of this issue is like someone pointing out the definition of First Amendment (what it meant originally) and what post-modern liberals use it for (what they like to call ‘separation of church and state’).

Mr. Parker, with all due respect, please broaden your reading selection.

*I must admit, after reviewing Mathison’s book from cover to cover, I can see why he hesitated to write it. Without any personal animosity toward Keith (for I have never met or talked with Keith), I must, nevertheless say, without equivocation, that The Shape of Sola Scriptura is one of the most shortsighted, ill thought-out, and error laden works I have read on this subject. In trying to defend an indefensible teaching, Mathison shows us once again the quicksand into which our Protestant brethren have sunk themselves and continue to sink. The more they struggle to escape, the more they expose their false premises and conclusions, and the more the Catholic position is vindicated. There is one thing to which I will agree in Mathison’s opening paragraph – yes, the “providence of God” was at work when Mathison wrote his book, for it gave the Catholic side one more opportunity to show that the concept of Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition that appears to have a mysterious, *unrelenting grip on otherwise intelligent men.

A Critique of Keith Mathison’s book:
“The Shape of Sola Scriptura”

This is not a review, it’s a 158 page analysis. Let me help you out here. Get "Born fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic". The author taught at Keith Mathison’s seminary before his conversion. You can get a used copy for $3.74

 

[paul_c]

You got to my post too soon…i was going to edit it and first ask for a definition of SS from an official protestant document, which I think we have not pinned down yet?

The nature of protestatism is to deny authority so there is no one to proclaim that something is “official”. A lesson can be learned from Martin Luther’s circumstance. He denied the Pope’s authority but tried to set himself up as a type of anti-pope, the leader of the reformed movement, but he was quickly dismayed by the fragmentation of his followers, who were as quick to Protest his views and deny his authority as he was to protest those of the Catholic Church and the authority of the Pope. The only authority they “recognize” is the bible, which is self serving because we all know it can be twisted to make any claims they want. After all, even Satan used Scripture in the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4. .

 

[Sonny69]

If it is so Biblical, how do you explain this?

Not Everything Is In The Bible:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
(John 21:25 RSV)

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
(John 20:30-31 RSV)
**
Paul Speaks of Tradition as Authoritative:**

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV)

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
(2 Timothy 2:1-2 RSV)

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
(1 Corinthians 11:2 RSV)

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
(1 Thessalonians 2:13 RSV)

Early Christians Followed Apostolic Tradition:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
(Acts 2:42 RSV)

How do you explain all of that?

Simple; Jesus virtually bannished all diseases and cast out “many” demons and if each account of what He DID were written in detail; it would be that overwhelming. Do you think He healed 1K, 2K, 5K 10K or much more than that? Get the picture?

But what was given as you aptly put down is the main point of the passage, which you overlook in John 20: “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” these specific example for you to believe - given enough - don’t want to overwhelm you - not necessary.

All Christians follow apostolic teaching which is the WORD OF TRUTH - the gospel of salvation according to God! So whether one receives it from hearing Paul directly or by one of his epistles - learn from the Apostles, prophets and the Lord’s teaching; they are the same thing and all point to one Person who is called the Christ and His name is Jesus. Read Psalm 119; all the verses, except the last, describe what is Scripture and Peter himself affirms that Paul’s writings are equal to and therefore are Scripture; just as the rest of the writiers - praises to the work of the Holy Spirit.

May the Lord Jesus Christ give you peace and abundant grace.

 

[Sonny69]

Sonny, It was St. Paul, not Jesus that used the analogy of the Church being the body of Christ. See 1Corinthians 12: And while he makes the point that all the members of the body are important and are necessary to the function of the church, he also recognizes that some deserve more honor than others. He even lists them in order:

28 Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; 6 second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds?
30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?
31 Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way.

You confuse the author of Scripture; it is not man and it was Jesus who stated the Holy Spirit would give the writers the inspiration of their writings based on who’s commands or speech? Jesus perhaps? God’s will and purposes are very often achieved by human vessels chosen according to His will and His purpose. And among men He has ordained honor among men. God has given men government and leaders to whom we are commanded to give honor because God has placed them in positions of authority for our good - as an example.

Of course this takes away from the answer given concerning Mary,the mother of Jesus, as it is written in Scripture. (John 2:1,3 & Acts 1:14)

Grace to you.

 

[guanophore]

Although there is no way to cut through the fog here,

Does this mean that Catholics are, by definition, so deep into a “fog” that no amount of reasoning or “Truth” can cut through the “fog” to bring us into clarity about God’s revelation to mankind?

[SIGN]Sola Scriptura (bible alone) is the principle that the Holy Scriptures are the only source that carries the weight of infallible authority in the Church’s faith and practice. Everything a person finds as part of his essential Christian beliefs (including Salvation) can be sufficiently derived from the Scriptures
[/SIGN]

I find it curious that, in the last year, the thrust of our Reformed brethren on this issue has changed markedly. In the past, SS was considered a doctrine of the faith, and now recently it appears to have been reclassified as a “theological practice”. Be that as it may, theological practices are still built upon doctrine.

In order for infallibility to exist, then fallibility must exist. Since both Catholics and our Reformed brethren consider the Scriptures to be inerrant and inspired, I think we will all agree that the Scriptures are not fallible.

Authority is an activity that can only be exercised by persons, not books, however Holy. The exercise of authority requires discernment, acts of the will, the ability to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions (which may be fallible). Scripture does not posess these characteristics, which are unique to persons.

It was a noble effort, during the Reformation, to replace the authorities of the Catholic Church with the Scriptures in an effort to purify the Church. However, a duty was erroneously assigned to the Scriptures that the were never intended to have. Expecting the Scriptures to be an infallible authority requires characteristics that they do not posess. In the end, the person who believes they posess these qualities becomes himself his own infallible authority, and believes it is the HS working through the Bible and himself.

 

[paul_c]

Simple; Jesus virtually bannished all diseases and cast out “many” demons and if each account of what He DID were written in detail; it would be that overwhelming. Do you think He healed 1K, 2K, 5K 10K or much more than that? Get the picture?

But what was given as you aptly put down is the main point of the passage, which you overlook in John 20: “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” these specific example for you to believe - given enough - don’t want to overwhelm you - not necessary.

All Christians follow apostolic teaching which is the WORD OF TRUTH - the gospel of salvation according to God! So whether one receives it from hearing Paul directly or by one of his epistles - learn from the Apostles, prophets and the Lord’s teaching; they are the same thing and all point to one Person who is called the Christ and His name is Jesus. Read Psalm 119; all the verses, except the last, describe what is Scripture and Peter himself affirms that Paul’s writings are equal to and therefore are Scripture; just as the rest of the writiers - praises to the work of the Holy Spirit.

May the Lord Jesus Christ give you peace and abundant grace.

I’m sorry but your argument doesn’t hold together. Don’t you see that you rely on St. Peter to declare St Paul’s writings scripture, but you are unwilling to acknowledge that authority in other matters. And it most certainly does make a difference in learning a thing from a human being than from a book. A human can correct a misunderstanding, a book can not. Jesus left Humans to explain the truth not books, for this very reason. In fact, we have no records of Jesus writing anything permanent down (he did write in the sand during the incident of the women caught in the act of adultery). Contemplate the reason for that.

 

[Newsy]

All Christians follow apostolic teaching which is the WORD OF TRUTH - the gospel of salvation according to God! So whether one receives it from hearing Paul directly or by one of his epistles - learn from the Apostles, prophets and the Lord’s teaching; they are the same thing and all point to one Person who is called the Christ and His name is Jesus.

I agree that more unites us than divides us, but hold on. All Christians is a very broad term. Also, the majority of Christians follow most of the Apostolic Tradition, but not all of it or we would all be Catholic. Please show me how “all Christians” follow Apostolic teaching and maintain contradictory ideas of salvation, the Church, etc.

Some have chosen to reject the teaching of the Apostles by requiring everything they believe to be proven by the Bible. This claim is made nowhere in the Bible and is a late arrival to the theological scene. There are some Protestants who even admit that SS showed up with the Reformation.

In order to make SS work you have to do a little dancing around the first couple centuries of the Church. Please explain to me how SS works considering that the Church cannonized the Bible, not the Bible made the Church.