Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? You Betcha!

[paul_c]

PART II of my response to "Sola Scriptura Biblical.

And keep in mind that the Bible that we all read today, comes from the 'Authorized, King James Version, IN ENGLISH ! ) even European translations of the bible into German, French, etc. are a translation of the King James Version.

But try reading the Bible in its original languages of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. There is a whole difference in the understanding of what you are actually reading. But the English translation has bastardized the Bible for most of the world today. I would like to see a very faithful translation of the Bible into English from the original Aramaic, Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It would probably make 99% of the people take an entirely different look at their beliefs today.

But be happy with what you have today. Not all of us are Ancient Aramaic, Latin, Greek, or Hebrew scholars. The current English translation of the Bible, the first being from the Douay- Rheims translation in 1582 led to the King James version in the early 17th century, is the best we can hope for at the present time.

So as far as “Sola Scripture Biblical” is concerned I think that you should read the Bible, but keep in mind that it is a book that is supposed to guide you morally through life. To totally believe everything you read in the bible, keep in mind that in the State of Tennessee there are believers that say if you actually, and truly believe, then you can pick up serpents without fear of being bitten, like it says in the Bible. These people actually dig pits and fill them full of Rattlesnakes and jump in with them and try to pick the snakes up and “pet” them.

Are you actually willing to jump into a pit filled with Rattlesnakes and Cobras and expect to continue to live just by saying you believe? Of course not. Well the same thing is with the Bible.

In the New Testament, especially the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christ gets his point across by teaching parables. Think of the Old Testament in the same way. These histories are something like parables that were told to young children, and people who were ignorant, uneducated, and illiterate people. They had to be told something that they simplistically could understand.

Can you imagine trying to explain Thermo-Nuclear Dynamics to someone who is uneducated and illiterate, and expect them to understand? Of course they won’t understand a word you are saying. Thankfully God gave man the one thing that sets him apart from all the other creatures on earth…The ability to think! When is the last time you went to the library to read a book written by a horse or cow or a snake ?

My own priest at the parish I belong to today, tells me that I can believe what I want as far as the Bible is concerned, as long as God is behind it !

Henry,
I would be careful . You seem to be implying that the bible is full of embellishments and you should be selective in what you read. This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
I would highly recommend that you read the section of the catechism on scripture:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[paul_c]

It seems silly to me that when protestants are provided with Biblical passages in support
of Sacred Tradition – they reject them in favor of sola scriptura for which there are no passages.

I would like to know more about the sola scriptura argument as it relates to historical context.

When was this argument first proposed?
Was it ever argued prior to the invention of the printing press?

Sola Scriputura clearly came out of the Reformation, which of course was after the invention and propagation of the printing press. The reformation leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwigli, etc) denied the authority of the Catholic Church most vigorously, but without its teaching authority they had no link back to Christ other than the bible which in their arrogance, they felt they could intepret better than the Catholic Church which produced it.

 

[justtryin]

Sola Scriputura clearly came out of the Reformation, which of course was after the invention and propagation of the printing press. The reformation leaders (Luther, Calvin, Zwigli, etc) denied the authority of the Catholic Church most vigorously, but without its teaching authority they had no link back to Christ other than the bible which in their arrogance, they felt they could intepret better than the Catholic Church which produced it.

But who influenced this thought pattern of sola scriptura? Who was shaping Luther’s thoughts? (I know the theories of the devil, the masons, the rosicrucian, and so on.)
There’s got to be more to it than “the Indulgence scandal”.
I kinda undersatand the pride side of it though. I think what we today call arrogance and ego is nothing more than old fashioned pride. Almost the way narcicism seems to be a modern form of Pelagianism. (Instead of putting man in general at the center of the universe, it’s man in particular. Namely, ME ME ME!!!) You see this in political debates every day. You wonder how can people think so contrary to facts. They are either up to something or they are truly that ignorant. Then you think noone can be that ignorant unless they choose to be. Could it possibly be pride saying look at me and all my learning, there’s no way I can be wrong?

You always are asked for sources from the first century to back up Catholic doctrine. Nevermind that first century Christians were being slaughtered and may not have had the opportunity to write things down all the time. Saying it is quicker than writing it when lions are breathing on you. Not to mention who has assets when you are on the run from persecuters.

To the sola scriptura argument I would ask: Where is the first century Bible?

Just wondering out loud.

 

[paul_c]

But who influenced this thought pattern of sola scriptura? Who was shaping Luther’s thoughts? (I know the theories of the devil, the masons, the rosicrucian, and so on.)
There’s got to be more to it than “the Indulgence scandal”.
I kinda undersatand the pride side of it though. I think what we today call arrogance and ego is nothing more than old fashioned pride. Almost the way narcicism seems to be a modern form of Pelagianism. (Instead of putting man in general at the center of the universe, it’s man in particular. Namely, ME ME ME!!!) You see this in political debates every day. You wonder how can people think so contrary to facts. They are either up to something or they are truly that ignorant. Then you think noone can be that ignorant unless they choose to be. Could it possibly be pride saying look at me and all my learning, there’s no way I can be wrong?

You always are asked for sources from the first century to back up Catholic doctrine. Nevermind that first century Christians were being slaughtered and may not have had the opportunity to write things down all the time. Saying it is quicker than writing it when lions are breathing on you. Not to mention who has assets when you are on the run from persecuters.

To the sola scriptura argument I would ask: Where is the first century Bible?

Just wondering out loud.

It wan’t just Luther. It was all the Protestant reformation leaders that gravitated to the Bible. It was an easy extension for them. The denied the authority of the church but needed something to tie them to Christ. Given that there are only three choices:
Catholic Tradition, the magesterium and scripture, and the first two obviously require the authority of the Catholic Church which they deny, the Protestant Reformers really had no choice but to declare the Bible as the only source of inspiration and authority that mattered. I think its as simple as that. It really always comes down to where does the authority to teach the way to salvation reside.

 

[haparker321]

Of course not! Therefore, the Bible conveys the Word of God, but is not, in and of itself, the Word of God.

Now lo and behold! The primary differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants is this:

[sign]**For Protestants, the Bible is assumed to the be inerrant Word of God while Catholics deny that this ever was the claim. **[/sign]

Now, if I were to assume the Bible is not the word of God, but a conveyor of what God said, then of course we would have to assume that Scriptures are insufficient and we would believe the infallible Magisterium concept (i.e. Sola Scriptura is un-biblical because it falsely assumes the Bible to be the Word of God). However, because we assume differently, we now understand why the Catholic Church is where she stands.

Parker

 

[regression]

Now lo and behold! The primary differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants is this:

[sign]**For Protestants, the Bible is assumed to the be inerrant Word of God while Catholics deny that this ever was the claim. **[/sign]

Now, if I were to assume the Bible is not the word of God, but a conveyor of what God said, then of course we would have to assume that Scriptures are insufficient and we would believe the infallible Magisterium concept (i.e. Sola Scriptura is un-biblical because it falsely assumes the Bible to be the Word of God). However, because we assume differently, we now understand why the Catholic Church is where she stands.

Parker

I am not sure what the person was getting at who said the bible is not the Word of God. From the Catechism, 135:

135 “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

Also Parker, when you quote someone, could you keep their username in the post? That would help going back to the post you are quoting from. Thanks.

 

[EricFilmer]

Now lo and behold! The primary differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants is this:

[sign]**For Protestants, the Bible is assumed to the be inerrant Word of God while Catholics deny that this ever was the claim. **[/sign]

I noticed that you completely side-stepped the whole rationality behind my statement. Once again, Parker, your capacity to dodge the essence of my material never fails to amaze me. Therefore I will straight out ask you these questions:

Does burning a Bible into ashes and then scattering them effectively destroy it in terms of it being a book?

If you say no then clearly explain why.

If you say yes then answer this question: Is the Word of God associated with that Bible effectively destroyed as well?

If you say no then you have supported my original statement.
I highly doubt you would say yes to this last question, but if you do I would certainly like to see that explained as well.

I would also like to add to this discussion what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the topic of biblical inerrancy:

CCC #104: In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

CCC #107: The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

CCC #135: “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).

Now, if I were to assume the Bible is not the word of God, but a conveyor of what God said, then of course we would have to assume that Scriptures are insufficient…

No, we would not have to assume that the Scriptures are insufficient. Consider the fact that the prophets were “conveyors of what God said”, but the prophets themselves were not the actual Word of God. Does this mean that when they preached the Word of God, their preaching was insufficient to actually deliver the Word of God?

…and we would believe the infallible Magisterium concept (i.e. Sola Scriptura is un-biblical because it falsely assumes the Bible to be the Word of God).

Did you actually think you would get away with this straw man? Not a single Catholic in this thread ever denied that the Bible is the Word of God. We have, however, rejected your assessment that the term “Word of God” is limited to Scripture Alone (at least this is what you implied in your OP’s bible citations, which you have yet to clarify or defend, and it is now 18 days since you posted them.

However, because we assume differently, we now understand why the Catholic Church is where she stands.

The biggest assumption in this thread is your assumption that the Bible somehow teaches Sola Scriptura! And yet you have done precious little in making a case for this, and you have made no effective defense for even one of your points in this thread.

 

[regression]

EricFilmer, thank you for the follow up post explaining what the Church teaches about the Word of God.

 

[EricFilmer]

EricFilmer, thank you for the follow up post explaining what the Church teaches about the Word of God.

Glad to help, regression. Here was the actual flow of this aspect of the discussion (I do not know exactly who it was that started this with a statement about the Bible “containing an account of the Word of God” because, as you pointed out earlier, Parker, for whatever reason, has not included user names in his quotes):

Post #234
Post #251
Post #281
And, as you saw, I continued this discussion in Post #283

Also Parker, when you quote someone, could you keep their username in the post? That would help going back to the post you are quoting from. Thanks.

Parker, I would like to second this request.

 

[EricFilmer]

I noticed that you completely side-stepped the whole rationality behind my statement. Once again, Parker, your capacity to dodge the essence of my material never fails to amaze me. Therefore I will straight out ask you these questions:

Does burning a Bible into ashes and then scattering them effectively destroy it in terms of it being a book?

If you say “no” then clearly explain why.

If you say “yes” then answer this question: Is the Word of God associated with that Bible effectively destroyed as well?

If you say “no” then you have supported my original statement.
(I highly doubt you would say “yes” to this last question, but if you do I would certainly like to see that explained as well.)

I would also like to add to this discussion what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the topic of biblical inerrancy:

CCC #104: In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

CCC #107: The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

CCC #135: “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).

No, we would not have to assume that the Scriptures are insufficient. Consider the fact that the prophets were “conveyors of what God said”, but the prophets themselves were not the actual Word of God. Does this mean that when they preached the Word of God, their preaching was insufficient to actually deliver the Word of God?

Did you actually think you would get away with this straw man? Not a single Catholic in this thread ever denied that the Bible is the Word of God. We have, however, rejected your assessment that the term “Word of God” is limited to Scripture Alone (at least this is what you implied in your OP’s bible citations, which you have yet to clarify or defend, and it is now 18 days since you posted them.

The biggest assumption in this thread is your assumption that the Bible somehow teaches Sola Scriptura! And yet you have done precious little in making a case for this, and you have made no effective defense for even one of your points in this thread.

 

[EricFilmer]

I noticed that you completely side-stepped the whole rationality behind my statement. Once again, Parker, your capacity to dodge the essence of my material never fails to amaze me. Therefore I directly challenge you to answer this set of questions:

**Does burning a Bible into ashes and then scattering them effectively destroy it in terms of it being a book?

If you say “no” then clearly explain why.

If you say “yes” then answer this question: Is the Word of God associated with that Bible effectively destroyed as well?

If you say “no” then you have supported my original statement.
(I highly doubt you would say “yes” to this last question, but if you do I would certainly like to see that explained as well).**

I would also like to add to this discussion what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the topic of biblical inerrancy:

CCC #104: In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

CCC #107: The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

CCC #135: “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).

No, we would not have to assume that the Scriptures are insufficient. Consider the fact that the prophets were “conveyors of what God said”, but the prophets themselves were not the actual Word of God. Does this mean that when they preached the Word of God, their preaching was insufficient to actually deliver the Word of God?

Did you actually think you would get away with this straw man? Not a single Catholic in this thread ever denied that the Bible is the Word of God. We have, however, rejected your assessment that the term “Word of God” is limited to Scripture Alone (at least this is what you implied in your OP’s bible citations, which you have yet to clarify or defend, and it is now 18 days since you posted them.

The biggest assumption in this thread is your assumption that the Bible somehow teaches Sola Scriptura! And yet you have done precious little in making a case for this, and you have made no effective defense for even one of your points in this thread.

 

[paul_c]

Now lo and behold! The primary differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants is this:

[sign]**For Protestants, the Bible is assumed to the be inerrant Word of God while Catholics deny that this ever was the claim. **[/sign]

Now, if I were to assume the Bible is not the word of God, but a conveyor of what God said, then of course we would have to assume that Scriptures are insufficient and we would believe the infallible Magisterium concept (i.e. Sola Scriptura is un-biblical because it falsely assumes the Bible to be the Word of God). However, because we assume differently, we now understand why the Catholic Church is where she stands.

Parker

Parker, the primary difference between Catholics and Protestants is and has always been about the authority of the Catholic Church. Catholics submit to the teaching authority of the Magisterium while Protestants deny its authority. When the reformers were Protesting, they were Protesting papal authority not the Church’s view on the Bible. In fact, Catholic’s recognize that Scripture is divinely inspired and everything in the Bible is true. We just also recognize that All truth is not contained in the Bible. If you think about this, you will recognize that this is obvious. The bible doesn’t cover all the truths, but what it does cover is correct. The problem of course, is that if you interpret scripture in error, then you will be misled.

 

[fbl9]

snip…Now, if I were to assume the Bible is not the word of God, but a conveyor of what God said, then of course we would have to assume that Scriptures are insufficient and we would believe the infallible Magisterium** joke **(i.e. Sola Scriptura is un-biblical because it falsely assumes the Bible to be the Word of God). However, because we assume differently, we now understand why the Catholic Church is where she stands.

Parker

such dignity.

 

[pablope]

Now lo and behold! The primary differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants is this:
**However, because we assume differently, we now understand why the Catholic Church is where she stands. **Parker

Really, then could you kindly summarize again what or where you think the CC stands?

 

[Glennonite]

BTW, Parker: While I think your arguements are mere knee-jerk responses with no real thought, I do try to follow what you’re trying to say. But, what’s with the signs? They make you look like a three year-old.

I’m really not trying to offend you, but I’m only interested in your reasoning, not your expressiveness. I’m just sayin’…

Glennonite

 

[Kay_Cee]

Parker, here again is my post from May 18:

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 your response. This is my third request.

 

[Tomster]

I noticed that you completely side-stepped the whole rationality behind my statement. Once again, Parker, your capacity to dodge the essence of my material never fails to amaze me. Therefore I will straight out ask you these questions:

Does burning a Bible into ashes and then scattering them effectively destroy it in terms of it being a book?

If you say no then clearly explain why.

If you say yes then answer this question: Is the Word of God associated with that Bible effectively destroyed as well?

If you say no then you have supported my original statement.
I highly doubt you would say yes to this last question, but if you do I would certainly like to see that explained as well.

I would also like to add to this discussion what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the topic of biblical inerrancy:

CCC #104: In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.”

CCC #107: The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

CCC #135: “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God” (DV 24).

No, we would not have to assume that the Scriptures are insufficient. Consider the fact that the prophets were “conveyors of what God said”, but the prophets themselves were not the actual Word of God. Does this mean that when they preached the Word of God, their preaching was insufficient to actually deliver the Word of God?

Did you actually think you would get away with this straw man? Not a single Catholic in this thread ever denied that the Bible is the Word of God. We have, however, rejected your assessment that the term “Word of God” is limited to Scripture Alone (at least this is what you implied in your OP’s bible citations, which you have yet to clarify or defend, and it is now 18 days since you posted them.

The biggest assumption in this thread is your assumption that the Bible somehow teaches Sola Scriptura! And yet you have done precious little in making a case for this, and you have made no effective defense for even one of your points in this thread.

Well said Eric!

Your last paragraph hit it right on the spot.

Parker has done precious little in making his case and has no effective defense for even one of his points.

After saying this I would like to add that we Catholics CAN show that the doctrinal authority, or magisterium, with which Christ has equipped his Church includes all the rights and privileges necessary for the effective teaching of divine revelation and guarding intact the deposit of faith.

We can show definitively that Christ has willed that the human race as a whole should acquire God’s truth, not by individual inspiration, nor by the private interpretation of Scripture, but by attending to the living voice of the Church, His Mystical Body.

 

[Tomster]

Parker, here again is my post from May 18:

Still waiting for your response. This is my third request.

We are all waiting for his response!

 

[Tomster]

Parker, the primary difference between Catholics and Protestants is and has always been about the authority of the Catholic Church. Catholics submit to the teaching authority of the Magisterium while Protestants deny its authority. When the reformers were Protesting, they were Protesting papal authority not the Church’s view on the Bible. In fact, Catholic’s recognize that Scripture is divinely inspired and everything in the Bible is true. We just also recognize that All truth is not contained in the Bible. If you think about this, you will recognize that this is obvious. The bible doesn’t cover all the truths, but what it does cover is correct. The problem of course, is that if you interpret scripture in error, then you will be misled.

Thanks paul c!

What Parker fails to understand or will not admit is the fact that while he denies the teaching authority of the Catholic Church most Protestants adhere to the teachings (read: oral tradition) of their own particular ecclesial communities. By doing so, by blindly accepting those teachings, they actually refute their most hallowed man-made tradition, i.e. sola scriptura, all by themselves.

The contradiction of their position is so glaring it is amazing they don’t see it.

 

[paul_c]

We are all waiting for his response!

I’m not waiting for his response. None will be forthcoming. Basically, he has two choices:

1. He can admit that scripture was defined by the authority of the Catholic Church. Once he does this, he will be forced to swim the Tiber. This is a life changing decision that will take time, prayer and humility. This thought process will likely not occur on these pages, but will be done in private.
2. He can continue to Protest against the authority of the Catholic Church. Protestants are effectively forced to believe in Sola Scripture, since they deny the other two sources of divine inspiration and knowledge: Tradition and the teaching of the Magesterium.

The real question to ask any Protestant is what are they Protesting against. Usually its a protest against a strawman - what they think the Church is rather than what it REALLY is. As Blessed Cardinal Newman said, To know the Fathers is to become Catholic. The other reason is that they don’t like what the Catholic Church teaches, many times because it is inconvenient to them. To these, I answer that the truth is the truth and we must bend ourselves to it becuase surely the truth will not change for our desires.