Is sola Scriptura Infallible? Protestant says yes!

[Reformed1]

By Request:

The List of Catholic Traditions

Baptismal Regeneration
Apostolic Succession
The three-fold ministry (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)
Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist
The Substantial Presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the Eucharist
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Succession of the Petrine Ministry
The Authority of Tradition and the Magisterium
The Infallibility of the Teaching Church
The Canon of the OT and NT
Sunday as the day of worship
Purgatory
The Immaculate Conception
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.
Private revelation is not binding upon the faithful.
Communion of the saints
The permanent character of baptism
Sacrament of Confirmation as indelible upon the soul
Sacrament of Holy Orders as indelible upon the soul
Infused Grace
The Hypostatic Union
Knights of Columbus Spaghetti Dinners
Bingo



Just out of curiosity, why do you seek a list from an authority you wouldn’t recognize, anyway?

I happen to think the spaghetti dinners should be part of apostolic tradition…maybe I need to go to RCIA. You guys may win me over with that one.

Anyway, how do you know that Paul had knowledge of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[RNRobert]

We know we don’t have everything that Paul wrote.

Regardless, if a Catholic wants to quote 2Thess2:15 in defense of the RCC’s traditions, it seems reasonable to me that he should be able to demonstrate what exactly those traditions are that we see mentioned in 2Thess2:15.

To be honest, I don’t know. I quoted that verse because a poster implied that tradition wasn’t necessary, and I wanted to point out that the Apostles considered their word of mouth teachings as binding as those written down.
Also, Paul in Galatians 1:8 calls anathema anyone (including an angel from heaven) who teaches a gospel different from what Paul originally preached. I wasn’t in Galatia that day when Paul preached his gospel, so how am I to know, 2,000 years after the fact, which gospel is THE gospel?

 

[Reformed1]

The question is not whether or not Scripture is the Word of God or infallible, both Catholics and Protestants agree on the infallibility of Holy Scripture.

The real question lies in the translation. This is where the weakness of Protestantism is magnified. One portion of Scripture can not be stating opposing messages - so which message is correct? We can be certain that God did not intend for this confusion.

The Jews were held accountable to the scriptures and they were given the oracles of God, were they not?

Did God itend for the Jews to be confused?

 

[Reformed1]

To be honest, I don’t know. I quoted that verse because a poster implied that tradition wasn’t necessary, and I wanted to point out that the Apostles considered their word of mouth teachings as binding as those written down.
Also, Paul in Galatians 1:8 calls anathema anyone (including an angel from heaven) who teaches a gospel different from what Paul originally preached. I wasn’t in Galatia that day when Paul preached his gospel, so how am I to know, 2,000 years after the fact, which gospel is THE gospel?

I think you are asking how can you be 100% certain that the gospel is THE gospel. I don’t believe you can.

I think this is a similar question as “How can I know with 100% certainty that the RCC is what it claims to be?”

 

[RNRobert]

I think you are asking how can you be 100% certain that the gospel is THE gospel. I don’t believe you can.

I think this is a similar question as “How can I know with 100% certainty that the RCC is what it claims to be?”

To me, this sort of thinking leads to relativism, and eventually to a rejection of Christ. You might as well ask 'How can I know with 100% certainty that Jesus Christ is who he claims to be?"

Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to teach ALL truth. Jesus Himself said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. I believe in Jesus Christ, that He is God Incarnate, and that he keeps His promises.

 

[contramundum7]

The Beatles.

You don’t believe in elaborating much, do you??
How so the Beatles… or are you joking??

 

[Reformed1]

To me, this sort of thinking leads to relativism, and eventually to a rejection of Christ. You might as well ask 'How can I know with 100% certainty that Jesus Christ is who he claims to be?"

Many times its the Catholic that asks “How can you know for certain that the canon of scripture is correct?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think you are asking how can you be 100% certain that the gospel is THE gospel. I don’t believe you can.

I think this is a similar question as “How can I know with 100% certainty that the RCC is what it claims to be?”

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Many times its the Catholic that asks “How can you know for certain that the canon of scripture is correct?”

Of course we do. It’s a question to which Protestants have no real answer.

The Catholic learns of the canon from an infallible Church.

The Protestant learns of the canon from the pastor at his church. It’s a “burning in the bosom” thing.

BIG difference. Same result, mind you, but vastly different methodologies with enormous implications.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You don’t believe in elaborating much, do you??
How so the Beatles… or are you joking??

It was the Beatles. And Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

I know it sounds crazy, but one day almost completely out of the blue, I realized that songs like, “Hey, Jude”, “Eleanor Rigby” and “Lady Madonna” were referencing something that I only vaguely understood as “Catholic”. I remembered reading the Canterbury Tales in high school, and it started sinking in that all the references to monks and priests and nuns who were on their way to Canterbury were talking about the Catholic Church. I knew almost nothing about Catholicism after growing up in NC which was the least Catholic state in the nation at that time. (Lots of Yankees have moved in, so that may have changed over the past 25 years.)

Without warning or explanation (other than the pure Grace of God), I was gripped with an intense hunger for all things Catholic. I read everything I could get my hands on, met with a priest twice a week for six months and at the end of that time, I had confession, conditional baptism, confirmation and first communion - the last three of these all on the same day! God swept me off my feet and into his Church.

This was a pure gift for which I am very grateful.

 

[contramundum7]

It was the Beatles. And Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

I know it sounds crazy, but one day almost completely out of the blue, I realized that songs like, “Hey, Jude”, “Eleanor Rigby” and “Lady Madonna” were referencing something that I only vaguely understood as “Catholic”. I remembered reading the Canterbury Tales in high school, and it started sinking in that all the references to monks and priests and nuns who were on their way to Canterbury were talking about the Catholic Church. I knew almost nothing about Catholicism after growing up in NC which was the least Catholic state in the nation at that time. (Lots of Yankees have moved in, so that may have changed over the past 25 years.)

Without warning or explanation (other than the pure Grace of God), I was gripped with an intense hunger for all things Catholic. I read everything I could get my hands on, met with a priest twice a week for six months and at the end of that time, I had confession, conditional baptism, confirmation and first communion - the last three of these all on the same day! God swept me off my feet and into his Church.

This was a pure gift for which I am very grateful.

 

[contramundum7]

contramundum7:
Wow- very moving testimony. I always loved the Beatles (especially Paul). But the weird thing is, i don’t think any of them is (was) Catholic… Oh, now i remember vaguely that George may have been, but from my understanding, he left that behind… don’t know if he ever returned to the faith he was (?) raised in… In any case, i always thought Hey Jude was an allusion to, well, as you say something “Catholic”. I know that Paul M. got married last in a Protestant church… don’t know much about the other Beatles… I guess we could pray for them, right? I pray for a lot of famous people. They probably need our prayers more than poor people do…

 

[RNRobert]

Wow- very moving testimony. I always loved the Beatles (especially Paul). But the weird thing is, i don’t think any of them is (was) Catholic… Oh, now i remember vaguely that George may have been, but from my understanding, he left that behind… don’t know if he ever returned to the faith he was (?) raised in… In any case, i always thought Hey Jude was an allusion to, well, as you say something “Catholic”. I know that Paul M. got married last in a Protestant church… don’t know much about the other Beatles… I guess we could pray for them, right? I pray for a lot of famous people. They probably need our prayers more than poor people do…

I recall hearing somewhere that “Hey Jude” was a song dedicated to his son Julian, about the time John Lennon and Julian’s mom were getting divorced.

 

[RNRobert]

Of course we do. It’s a question to which Protestants have no real answer.

The Catholic learns of the canon from an infallible Church.

The Protestant learns of the canon from the pastor at his church. It’s a “burning in the bosom” thing.

BIG difference. Same result, mind you, but vastly different methodologies with enormous implications.

Thanks, Randy! I couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I recall hearing somewhere that “Hey Jude” was a song dedicated to his son Julian, about the time John Lennon and Julian’s mom were getting divorced.

You may be right. But you see, at the time, I was connecting “Hey, Jude” with Saint Jude the Patron of Hopeless cases and things despaired of. The song is sort of haunting in that way, and I didn’t know any better.

Like I said, God used some weird connections to spark the flame.

I could throw in Billy Joel’s song, “Only the Good Die Young”. An appalling song you would never want your daughter to listen to, but it was on the radio A LOT talking about Catholic things. God used it.

 

[lodiparishioner]

Yes, I agree with you Ceil-1. I haven’t heard it anywhere else but it always looked to me that protestants “worship” the bible as they believe we worship statues or bread.

The Bible is the Word of God, but a careful reading of its contents points to the revelation of Christ. It is information about Jesus and His personality and information that He wishes us to have. Knowledge of Jesus Christ is knowledge of the Father as well, as they are unified.

Many non-Catholics have a tendency to emphasize Scripture over Jesus Christ who is what the Scripture is meant to convey. This, I believe is where the error is. For instance, I reviewed a statement of faith for a club and it mentioned that the Supreme Authority is the Bible. I countered that the Supreme Authority is Jesus Christ, who is what the Scriptures are all about. This seemed to confuse them.

I truly believe that there are many Protestants who put the Scriptures ahead of Jesus Himself. That is a serious error that accounts for much of this persistence in separation. I can’t think of a good analogy. It is sort of like loving the autobiography more than the person it is about. I know these people themselves would not see it that way, but it is so true.

 

[RNRobert]

Yes, I agree with you Ceil-1. I haven’t heard it anywhere else but it always looked to me that protestants “worship” the bible as they believe we worship statues or bread.

This reminds of something James Cardinal Gibbons wrote in *Faith of Our Fathers:

An English parson once remarked to a Catholic friend: “Tom, don’t you pray to images?” “We pray before them,” replied Tom; “but we have no intention of praying to them.” “Who cares for your intention,” retorted the parson. “Don’t you pray at night?” observed Tom. “Yes,” said the parson, “I pray at my bed.” “Yes; you pray to the bedpost.” “Oh, no!” said the reverend gentleman; “I have no intention of doing that.” “Who cares,” replied Tom, “for your intention.”

 

[asheeha]

Thank you for all your insightful posts!
I seem to be experiencing something akin to Randy’s adventure. God is sweeping me off my feet and I’m not quite sure I like it! :ehh:

SolaScriptura responded in an earlier thread to a story about Eric…I think. Anyway he essentially said the logic was flawed and revealed the ignorance of the man.

I have to admit that I have come to understand Sola Scriptura in exactly this way. As soon as I really thought about where the Bible came from, outside the actual canonization, I became convinced that Sacred Tradition existed. To think that Jesus didn’t leave writings but His Word…His Tradition to men and that it would be held in His Church opened up a whole new world to me. And then how the books of the Bible came to be known as I know and love them. It was through the tradition of the New Testament church that the books I see in the Bible were preserved and chosen.

So, as ignorant as that is, I’m asking for help. Brutal, yet helpful honesty. Show me where my logic is flawed. Is it that the CC has no real part to play in the Bible? Or that it is illogical for a Church that used tradition to infallibly claim that these books are infallible should no longer hold to that tradition and raise the books above the tradition? Something else that is beyond my grasp?

It might seem like sarcasms…but really, I can’t see a different logic…give me fresh eyes!

thank you all for your insightful and thoughtful comments!
-a

 

[SolaScriptura]

I have to admit that I have come to understand Sola Scriptura in exactly this way. As soon as I really thought about where the Bible came from, outside the actual canonization, I became convinced that Sacred Tradition existed.

No one denies tradition played a part of in the formation of the Canon, however that does not mean tradition is therefore infallible. As a matter of fact no one in 4th century that compiled the canon thought they were infallible or the tradition they used to compile the canon. This is nothing more than false apologetic argument by Rome to prop up and infallible church. Just think no one needed an infallible ruling on the canon from the first Old Testament book until the 16th century at the Council of Trent, but now Roman Catholics make it seem as if no one would have any confidence that what Scripture is unless they have an infallible pronouncement. How did God’s covenant who placed such an importance on His word for their life and practice survive for thousands and thousands and thousands of years if there story is true?
Also what is the content of the Sacred Tradition that you became convinced of?

To think that Jesus didn’t leave writings but His Word…His Tradition to men and that it would be held in His Church opened up a whole new world to me. And then how the books of the Bible came to be known as I know and love them. It was through the tradition of the New Testament church that the books I see in the Bible were preserved and chosen.

Yes, and it was through the tradition of the Old Covenant church that they preserved the books and for much longer I might add. Do the Jews have infallible Tradition also? The Jews of Jesus day used the same kind of arguments that Catholic used today. They used tradition to disregard what God had commanded in His word and they referred to their physicalancestry to validate their position. The Lord of Glory himself refuted both of these arguments, therefore no one will be vindicated for ignoring what Christ himself clearly revealed. Tradition claims have to be judged by God’s revealed word and physical line of succession does not guarantee faithfulness to God’s teaching.

So, as ignorant as that is, I’m asking for help. Brutal, yet helpful honesty. Show me where my logic is flawed. Is it that the CC has no real part to play in the Bible?

Confessions and catechism can play a part in a church. They are a more systematic way of teaching essentials to church, however the writings of uninspired men must never be put on the same level as God speaking in Scripture. It is mind boggling that one has to even say this, but such are the times we are in.

Or that it is illogical for a Church that used tradition to infallibly claim that these books are infallible should no longer hold to that tradition and raise the books above the tradition? Something else that is beyond my grasp?

The problem is the church is not infallible. God did not create us to be infallible. God wants us to trust Him even when we don’t know things with 100% certainty. God has shown that He is faithful and He has promised He will not abandon His people. He is our protector and the gates of hades will not prevail against His church. Can we take God at His word to work through His church in all her fallibility and falleness and yet fulfill all His promise? Can we not trust God unless He gives us infallible certainty about things?

The concept of putting some nebulous and contradictory tradition on equal par with Scripture doesn’t make any sense. Early Church Fathers claimed Tradition for many things that Rome will not accept and then there are things with no support in early tradition yet Rome claims it is tradition. But wait, it gets worse. Sometimes the things she claims for Sacred Tradition is contradicted in the ECFs.

Notice how often Catholics talk of Tradition, but very few tell you what it really is and/or document it path to us today. They are very fond of giving a linear apostolic succession for their Popes to prove they are in fact traced back to Peter( sound just like the Jews with Moses and Abraham), but ask them to do the same for their doctrines. For example, try to get one of them to trace the dogma of the Immaculate Conception from 1st century to now or have them trace Papal Infallibility. Not only that, there is no sound biblical proof for any of it. Yes, they will throw out some verses, but anyone fairly knowledgeable of the Scriptures will see that the house is built with straw.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Notice how often Catholics talk of Tradition, but very few tell you what it really is and/or document it path to us today.

Could you perhaps give us a one sentence description of the American Way of Life? We talk about it all the time, but could anyone really capture exactly what we mean or document the development of it over the past three centuries?

They are very fond of giving a linear apostolic succession for their Popes to prove they are in fact traced back to Peter( sound just like the Jews with Moses and Abraham), but ask them to do the same for their doctrines. For example, try to get one of them to trace the dogma of the Immaculate Conception from 1st century to now or have them trace Papal Infallibility. Not only that, there is no sound biblical proof for any of it. Yes, they will throw out some verses, but anyone fairly knowledgeable of the Scriptures will see that the house is built with straw.

We have agreed previously that the original Aposltes were infallible because of the promises Jesus made about sending the Holy Spirit. To answer the question of whether an infallible, apostolic church still exists, we can begin by looking at a passage from Matthew, and as we do, we will begin to see just how closely the concepts of authority, infallibility and apostolic succession are tied together.“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ “ (Matthew 28:18-19)
First, notice in the passage known as the “Great Commission”, that the Apostles were commanded to make disciples of “all nations”.

How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths.

Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.