Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[paul_c]

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.

You are making things up now. Jesus never stated that he would inspire writers in the future. He said he would would be with his church until the end of the age and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. He also said he would build his church on St. Peter (Matthew 16) and after his resurrection, the good shepherd told Peter to care for his flock (John 21). You recognize that he chose men to honor and gave men leaders, so why is it that you rebel against the Catholic Church, the institute He foundeded to spread the gospel and administer the sacraments? And why do you beleive the book but not the church that wrote it and compiled it for teaching and liturgical use through divine inspiration?

 

[haparker321]

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

Isn’t it a bit presumptuous to assume that I have a limited reading selection? Did I mention that Keith Mathison’s book is the only one I own?

A Critique of Keith Mathison’s book

I already read it, thanks for pointing that out. If you want to buy my book, ‘The Resurrection’ you can for $3.99. It’s a kindle edition that can be bought on Amazon. Click the link by my signature to get to my blog and then click on the amazon logo.

Parker

 

[EricFilmer]

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.

Actually Sonny, this is not really a defense of Sola Scriptura but an argument against it. You’re saying that John did not bother recording many things because they were “not necessary” (or to put that another way, they were “non-essentials”). Well, he didn’t record Sola Scriptura either, and between his gospel, three epistles and Revelation he certainly had ample opportunity to do so. And yet neither John nor any NT writers tells of Jesus teaching Sola Scriptura (either in word or in deed).

So, by your assessment, if John knew about Sola Scriptura then he regarded it as a non-essential. And yet when one considers how Sola Scriptura is to be the foundation for the formulation of all valid Christian doctrine, how can it not be considered an essential? As an adherent of Sola Scriptura, how do you address this glaring omission among all the gospel writers? Actually, it is a glaring omission among all the various people God used to record Scripture (Old and New Testament).

All Christians follow apostolic teaching which is the WORD OF TRUTH - the gospel of salvation according to God!

And since the beginning of Christian history, Catholicism along with all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches and all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches have believed that this apostolic teaching comes through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. So that means billions of Scripture-using people over a course of approximately 2000 years never gleaning Sola Scriptura from the Bible, nor taught it.

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.

Sacred Tradition is received from these same sources.

Read Psalm 119; all the verses, except the last, describe what is Scripture

To be more precise, it describes what the Torah is. After all, this is the Hebrew word which in English Bibles is usually translated as “law” or “word.” The Torah refers to the first five books of the Bible (and when the Psalmist wrote this he may not have even known about the fifth one, Deuteronomy, as it had not been rediscovered and promulgated by King Josiah yet).

Therefore, if you think that somehow Psalm 119 teaches Sola Scriptura then you need to throw out everything in your Bible except the first five books! The irony is that doing this would necessitate throwing out Psalm 119 as well.

…praises to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Does that include praising the work of the Holy Spirit within the Magisterium when the Magisterium officially interprets and defines matters pertaining to faith and morals?

 

[EricFilmer]

If you want to buy my book, ‘The Resurrection’ you can for $3.99. It’s a kindle edition that can be bought on Amazon. Click the link by my signature to get to my blog and then click on the amazon logo.

Parker

As a side note to this discussion, assuming that your book does not contain anything that treats Catholicism in an unfair manner, you have my sincere congratulations for having it published. The time, discipline and dedication that goes into such a venture is notably praiseworthy, and I extend such sentiments to both comrades and “apologetic jousting opponents” alike.

 

[Sonny69]

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.

Is that authority from man or from God? God; so whom did Peter give honor to? To Peter or to God. What did Peter say about himself to the Greeks who called him Zeus and by what authority were the apostles given the ability to heal and cast out demons and by whom did the message they prached, the Petra in Matthew 16? ALL OF GOD and NONE of MAN!!!

That is the problem you look at Scripture as simply a book.

 

[Sonny69]

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.

No it is black and white the saints and the aints, the saved and the unsaved, the Christian and the non-Christian. It is you that reject the teaching of the apostles; I embrace them because they are the words of God working through men and by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit the veil of blindness was removed about 7 years ago.

Let’s not go dancing until you read and understand Romans 8:19. That one verse should strike fire in the heart of any religious person.

 

[Sonny69]

You are making things up now. Jesus never stated that he would inspire writers in the future. He said he would would be with his church until the end of the age and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. He also said he would build his church on St. Peter (Matthew 16) and after his resurrection, the good shepherd told Peter to care for his flock (John 21). You recognize that he chose men to honor and gave men leaders, so why is it that you rebel against the Catholic Church, the institute He foundeded to spread the gospel and administer the sacraments? And why do you beleive the book but not the church that wrote it and compiled it for teaching and liturgical use through divine inspiration?

You cannot interpret Matthew 16 that way. It is Peter’s confession of the gospel that the church is built upon and who is building the church. I believe the words of Jesus are “I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH”; so who is building His church and has that church been revealed on earth? What does Romans 8:19 say about that. Do you not understand the difference between Petros and Petra? Basic 101 Greek. What keeps bringing people into the Kingdom? Peter or the gospel? No one denies that Peter was in THE leadership role among the Apostles apart from the Apostle Paul. But as they have been brought to heaven the gospel continues on to those who are called to preach the word in season and out of season and that responsibility falls on the royal priesthood of believers.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Is that authority from man or from God? God; so whom did Peter give honor to? To Peter or to God. What did Peter say about himself to the Greeks who called him Zeus and by what authority were the apostles given the ability to heal and cast out demons and by whom did the message they prached, the Petra in Matthew 16? ALL OF GOD and NONE of MAN!!!

That is the problem you look at Scripture as simply a book.

First, of course Peter said, "all of God and none of man. The Greeks were calling him a god. He was saying, “I’m a man, not a god.” He was not saying, “I’m not the man whom Christ called ‘Rock’ and on whom He built His Church.”

Second, you do realize that, when you say, “the Petra in Matthew 16” to a bunch of Catholics, we know that that “Petra” was Peter, right? So, although it’s insanely difficult to figure out what you think is “the Petra in Matthew 16” based on that wildly unwieldy run-on question, I think you thought that the “Petra” was God. But it’s not. It’s Peter. Just saying… So, while, as you point out, they weren’t preaching the authority derived from man, but from God, they were definitely preaching the authority of the Catholic Church founded on Peter as derived from Jesus who is God. Thanks for reminding us of the passages that shows Jesus, the King, conferring that authority on Peter, his Chief Steward.

Third, we don’t “look at Scripture as simply a book.” We look at it as the most holy, most blessed book ever written. That’s why we raise it up during the Mass. That’s why we read several lengthy passages from it every time we meet. That’s why every Church document that teaches us how to live and serve God cites at least twenty passages of it (usually much, much more). That’s why the Church specifically exhorts every Catholic to read it regularly. We simply don’t expect the written Word of God to do the work of Body of Christ, “which is the house of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth” (I Tim 3:15).

 

[EricFilmer]

That is the problem you look at Scripture as simply a book.

So because paul c does not support your personal interpretation of certain Scripture passages, that means he regards Scripture as simply a book?

What did Peter say about himself to the Greeks who called him Zeus…

For the record, that was Barnabas, not Peter (Acts 14:12) - I think you’re confusing this event with what happened between Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10:25-26. Uh-oh, in pointing this out I didn’t support your personal interpretation of Scripture. Does that mean that I look at Scripture as only a book, too?

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)

Sonny, I know you made this comment to paul c, but is this intended to also be a response to what I said about honoring Mary in Post #130 & Post #155? If so, I don’t see how it refutes anything either I or paul c presented on the topic. Could you clarify this?

 

[Sonny69]

First, of course Peter said, "all of God and none of man. The Greeks were calling him a god. He was saying, “I’m a man, not a god.” He was not saying, “I’m not the man whom Christ called ‘Rock’ and on whom He built His Church.”

Second, you do realize that, when you say, “the Petra in Matthew 16” to a bunch of Catholics, we know that that “Petra” was Peter, right? So, although it’s insanely difficult to figure out what you think is “the Petra in Matthew 16” based on that wildly unwieldy run-on question, I think you thought that the “Petra” was God. But it’s not. It’s Peter. Just saying… So, while, as you point out, they weren’t preaching the authority derived from man, but from God, they were definitely preaching the authority of the Catholic Church founded on Peter as derived from Jesus who is God. Thanks for reminding us of the passages that shows Jesus, the King, conferring that authority on Peter, his Chief Steward.

Third, we don’t “look at Scripture as simply a book.” We look at it as the most holy, most blessed book ever written. That’s why we raise it up during the Mass. That’s why we read several lengthy passages from it every time we meet. That’s why every Church document that teaches us how to live and serve God cites at least twenty passages of it (usually much, much more). That’s why the Church specifically exhorts every Catholic to read it regularly. We simply don’t expect the written Word of God to do the work of Body of Christ, “which is the house of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth” (I Tim 3:15).

Was the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, the church of God which is at Corinth, and the church of GOD in Colossae or Rome all Roman Catholic churches and all the writers just failed to mention that imprtant little detail? I’m confused and comfounded by the Scriptures.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
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.

Peter was given the authority to lead the church by Jesus, God incarnate. And that’s exactly the point. The Church was given authority by God that you do not recognize, even though its recorded in the Bible. and by the way, it ws Barnabas, not Peter that was called Zeus by the crowds in Lystra.; Here is the passage from Acts 14: 12

12 They called Barnabas “Zeus” and Paul “Hermes,” because he was the chief speaker

It is the problem you look at Scripture as simply a book.

No, Sonny. The problem is that you have no one to explain to you what you are reading and that has lead to misinterpretations. We all need this. Its not just you. This is Catholic tradition: the context of which is necessary to understand the bible properly

 

[paul_c]

Was the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, the church of God which is at Corinth, and the church of GOD in Colossae or Rome all Roman Catholic churches and all the writers just failed to mention that imprtant little detail? I’m confused and comfounded by the Scriptures.

No Sonny, they were all Catholic Churches and they were all united under the leadership of Peter, who was given this authority by Jesus. The designation “Roman” Catholic church was actually started by the Anglicans when they broke from the Catholic Church in the 1500s. And I’m not surprised you are confused and confounded by scripture. This is a common problem for those that don’t have the benefit of the Church to explain how to understand it…

 

[Tiberius1701]

You cannot interpret Matthew 16 that way. It is Peter’s confession of the gospel that the church is built upon and who is building the church. I believe the words of Jesus are “I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH”; so who is building His church and has that church been revealed on earth? What does Romans 8:19 say about that. Do you not understand the difference between Petros and Petra? Basic 101 Greek. What keeps bringing people into the Kingdom? Peter or the gospel? No one denies that Peter was in THE leadership role among the Apostles apart from the Apostle Paul. But as they have been brought to heaven the gospel continues on to those who are called to preach the word in season and out of season and that responsibility falls on the royal priesthood of believers.

No, actually, you can’t interpret Matthew 16:18 your way while denying the first, far more obvious, logical, and literal interpretation. It’s simply pattently irrational. The sentence is, “You are Peter [Rock], and on this rock I will build my Church.” It is not, “You are Peter [Rock], and on that thing you said a minute ago, but definitely not on you, 'cause that would be silly, I will build my Church.” Read the words Jesus actually said, Sonny. Grammatically, they simply do not make sense unless Jesus is saying that Peter is the Rock. Yeah, basic Greek says “Petros” is male and “Petra” is female. Doesn’t mean they don’t both mean “Rock,” Sonny! (P.S. Those who say “petros” is “little pebble” and “petra” is “enormous stone” aren’t citing the dialect that the biblical authors were using. They’re citing the dialects that died out centuries before the Gospels were written. In Koine, the dialect the Bible was written in, “petros” and “petra” mean exactly the same thing.)

You know what brought me into the Kingdom far more assuredly than the gospel alone? The gospel PLUS the authority of the Church. Because, without the sure authority of one interpretive body, namely Peter and his successors, I could believe anything I wanted. I could believe that I was a leoard and thus deserved to be petted and to lick myself all day. But, Sonny, I’m not a leopard, am I? Nope. And you’re not the arbiter of all Truth. The Church is. Doesn’t matter how much you want to believe it. It still isn’t true.

And no, everyone does not agree that Peter was the head of the Apostles “apart from the Apostle Paul.” Not even the Bible agrees with you there. Take a close look at Gal 2:1-2. No, Paul didn’t go see Cephas (aka Peter) right away, but when he did go to present his Gospel privately for revue, he went “by revelation”, i.e. he went to submit to the authority of Peter because God told Him to. Peter was and always has been the vicar of Christ. Yes, every Christian is called to proclaim the gospel in his or her daily circumstances, but the authority to verify the Truth, to settled disputes about it, and to tell us what is Truth, is the Church, not the individual person (Matt 18:15-17, I Tim 3:15). Peter didn’t tell you that “Scripture interprets Scripture”, he told you that “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction” (II Pet 3:16). That, again, is why God gave us the infallible authority of the Church. Because, left to our own with the so-called “wisdom” of sola Scriptura we will twist it to our own, eternal destruction.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
You are making things up now. Jesus never stated that he would inspire writers in the future. He said he would would be with his church until the end of the age and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. He also said he would build his church on St. Peter (Matthew 16) and after his resurrection, the good shepherd told Peter to care for his flock (John 21). You recognize that he chose men to honor and gave men leaders, so why is it that you rebel against the Catholic Church, the institute He foundeded to spread the gospel and administer the sacraments? And why do you beleive the book but not the church that wrote it and compiled it for teaching and liturgical use through divine inspiration?

Come on Sonny, you have been mislead. Simon was renamed " Cephas" which means Rock in Aramic, the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke . It is no coincidence that he was named the Rock because it was on this Rock that the church was built. Peter is simply the english translation for Rock. Petra is feminine, so inappropriate for a man’s name- one of the subtleties of translation. You seem to be going by memory on this: here are the applicable verses from Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

:

And you are right. Peter was the undeniable leader of the Apostles. Even Paul went to see him before he started his ministry (see Galatians). His leadership role was passed on to Linus then Cletus, then Clement and eventually to Benedict XVI. These men were ordained for this role and have the Apostolic authority. You can’t just claim this authoirty. It must be given to you.

 

[Holly3278]

I will accept that sola scriptura is Biblical the day a mathemetician says that 2 + 2 = 5.

 

[Newsy]

Come on Sonny, you have been mislead. Simon was renamed " Cephas" which means Rock in Aramic, the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke . It is no coincidence that he was named the Rock because it was on this Rock that the church was built. Peter is simply the english translation for Rock. Petra is feminine, so inappropriate for a man’s name- one of the subtleties of translation.

Also note, He said this while at Caesarea Phillipi, this is a giant rock wall with a pagan temple on it. This is significant as Christ saying His Church will prevail against even pagan ideas built on solid rock.

 

[B79]

Dear Haparker,

Of course Sola Scriptura didn’t exist before then (neither did ‘Sola Fide’, I might add). Once again the burden of proof is on you to show that it did, which gets back to your need to study the early history of Christianity. I can show you NUMEROUS quotes from the earliest saints which endorse the authority of the oral Tradition (which the Bible also EXPLICITLY supports). You won’t be able to do the same for Sola Scriptura (which originated with Martin Luther, did it not?). Again, this is much about history as it is about theology.

My next point in that last post didn’t seek to answer any particular claim you had made… It was just pointing out the ramifications of belief in Sola Scriptura – namely, that the doctrine implies that there was a period of a couple hundred years AFTER the time of Christ in which no one actually KNEW the truth God wished to reveal… Meaning Christ didn’t actually reveal anything (an impossibility if He is God), and all those martyrs who were fed to the lions by the Romans gave their lives for a truth… that they didn’t actually know (an absurdity).

I’ll pray for you, Haparker. I want you to come to the fullness of Truth. It doesn’t mean loving or believing the Bible any less!

 

[guanophore]

Is that authority from man or from God? God; so whom did Peter give honor to? To Peter or to God. What did Peter say about himself to the Greeks who called him Zeus

I think you are really confused, Sonny. If you want to have a rant, why not do it about the actual facts?

The authority of the CC comes from God, of course.

and by what authority were the apostles given the ability to heal and cast out demons and by whom did the message they prached, the Petra in Matthew 16? ALL OF GOD and NONE of MAN!!!

No one is claiming that any of the authority came from Man, Sonny. This is what is called a straw man arguement. You invent a fabrication,then you argue against it.

That is the problem you look at Scripture as simply a book.

This is an unfounded accusation, Sonny. If you wish to dialogue with us, why not be a bit more respectful of our faith?

You might also consider reading some of that “book”, so you can get your facts straight.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Parker, here again is my post from Wednesday.

Please quote book, chapter, and verse where scripture says it is self-athenticating.

Also, please make sure you do this for every book in the Bible (that is, I want to know where it says Genesis is self-authenticating and so forth). Otherwise, how can I know that when scripture says “scripture” it means to include Genesis, Exodus, or any other book of the Bible?

After all, surely you don’t expect me to take your word for it that each book of the Bible is self-authenticating without knowing where it says that in the Bible, for that would certainly be using a source (you) outside of scripture.

Still waiting for you to quote me where the Bible claims it is self-authenticating.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Parker, here again is my post from Wednesday.
Still waiting for you to quote me where the Bible claims it is self-authenticating.

Hi,

When Protestants say the Bible is “self-authenticating,” they don’t mean that the Bible itself says this about itself. So asking them to produce verses that say this is asking them to prove something that they don’t claim in the first place.

Consider what it means to say something is “self-authenticating.” It’s parallel to saying “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” In other words, if the Bible is the word of God, then it doesn’t need something external to it to verify this claim. If it is what it is, then it is authentic because it is from God, right?

I don’t think Catholics would ultimately disagree, at one level. While the Catholic Church claims to have canonized the Bible, it also claims that it only canonized what was already common knowledge. The Catholic Church claims that it was simply endorsing what believers were already reading as scripture.

So that pushes the question back. How did those Christians—prior to an official decree—already know the books they were reading were scripture? Peter, for example, mentions that some people were misreading Paul’s letters as they were the other scriptures. This indicates that at least Peter thought Paul’s letters had attained the status of scripture by the time he penned 2 Peter 3:16.

Also consider this. The Bible is an anthology—not a single book—but a collection of books. It therefore cannot refer to itself in toto. Individual books of the Bible can and often do refer to previous books of the Bible. But as a whole, the Bible doesn’t speak about itself in its final canonical form, nor can it. So demanding that the Bible do the impossible isn’t a fair question to begin with.

Thus questions like, “Where does the Bible say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith?” are nonsensical.

A better and fairer question would be to ask the Protestant why he/she thinks the Bible is self-authenticating rather than where the Bible teaches this. To that question, I can give you an answer. You may not find it to be a satisfactory answer, but it least it would be an answer based on the claims we actually make, rather than ones we do not make.