Snake-handling and Sola Scriptura

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I and others don’t always know the affiliation of the posters. Mr. Finley, for example, left his “religion” blank when he joined CFA. In my last post, I asked him for his denomination. But he may or may not give it, since he preferred not to identify himself by denomination previously. Many simply identify as “Christian” or “Protestant.” Or, they leave “religion” blank.

Jim

You are right, Jim. It is frustrating for me, as well, because I know good Catholics like yourself would prefer to do as I suggested above.
Perhaps I overstated the point in regards to you. My apology.

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

You are right, Jim. It is frustrating for me, as well, because I know good Catholics like yourself would prefer to do as I suggested above.
Perhaps I overstated the point in regards to you. My apology.

Jon

No apology needed, my friend!

God be with you, Jim

 

[submariner2]

I’m a bit confused. What are you talking about?

John,

It is in the last few paragraphs of Mark that the snake handling is mentioned. That part was added to the bible later. Most bibles have a footnote explaining that.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

These words in Mark were canonized by the Catholic Church at the close of the fourth Christian century when the canon of the first Bible, the original Bible, was established. The Catholic bishops who selected the contents of the New Testament and compiled the Bible are the “experts.” If anyone rejects this portion of the original Bible, how can they believe the rest of it? There are “experts” who reject the whole of Scripture. Shall we believe them? If the Church was not guided by the Spirit in collecting and canonizing the entire Bible, how can we trust any of it? That’s also my view of the so-called Old Testament “Apocrypha” (deuterocanon) that Protestants reject, but that’s for another thread.

The “deuterocanon” of the New Testament (writings which were controversial but were approved by general consensus of the entire Church later than other writings) are Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 1 and 3 John, Revelation, and Mark 16:9-20. If we reject these verses in Mark, might we as well reject the rest of the deuterocanonical writings?

Jim,

Read the footnotes in the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. Do you read the bible much and notice the footnotes?

By the way, the bible was not canonized until Trent. Those earleir councils were really just synods and could not count for the entire church. The Hippo synod did not even consult the Roman church. This is why Trent was needed to formally canonize the entire bible including the Deuterocanicals which had become controversial at that time.

Rob

 

[JohnHall]

John,

It is in the last few paragraphs of Mark that the snake handling is mentioned. That part was added to the bible later. Most bibles have a footnote explaining that.

Rob

I’m still a little confused, what was your point again?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Why, Jim?

Sola Scriptura can’t be found in the Bbile because Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach it and the early Church never heard of it.

Proof texting for sola scriptura doesn’t work because sola scriptura is a post apostolic-era practice intended for hermeunetics, which is practiced by the Church. That’s why its not a doctrine.

But as hermuentic practices go, it hasn’t worked any better than Tradition and Scripture in bringing about unity.

Sola Scriptura is a little more than post-apostolic don’t you think? It’s from the 16th century Reformation.

Which authority, Jim? The ancient Mother Church is divided for a 1,000 years now. Oh, that it were not.

Jon

Yes, all divisions in the Body of Christ are very sad, but Sola Scriptura was made a “pillar” of Protestantism by Martin Luther. He denied the authority of the ancient Catholic Church specifically and by inference the authority of the Orthodox Churches as well, since he rejected all the ancient Churches and formed his own, named for him. He could have become Oriental or Eastern Orthodox, but didn’t.

I’ve rummaged around the internet, and I find that SS is referred to as a doctrine. Here’s an example from that very reliable source, Wiki (with yet another definition of SS):

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

Other websites define SS as a doctrine as well. I’m puzzled as to how Protestantism could be founded upon a hermeunetic principle or how it could be a “pillar” of Protestantism. ??? When I was Protestant, my Southern Baptist church considered it a doctrine.

Jim

 

[JohnHall]

Sola Scriptura can’t be found in the Bbile because Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach it and the early Church never heard of it.

Sola Scriptura is a little more than post-apostolic don’t you think? It’s from the 16th century Reformation.

Yes, all divisions in the Body of Christ are very sad, but Sola Scriptura was made a “pillar” of Protestantism by Martin Luther. He denied the authority of the ancient Catholic Church specifically and by inference the authority of the Orthodox Churches as well, since he rejected all the ancient Churches and formed his own, named for him. He could have become Oriental or Eastern Orthodox, but didn’t.

I’ve rummaged around the internet, and I find that SS is referred to as a doctrine. Here’s an example from that very reliable source, Wiki (with yet another definition of SS):

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

Other websites define SS as a doctrine as well. I’m puzzled as to how Protestantism could be founded upon a hermeunetic principle or how it could be a “pillar” of Protestantism. ??? When I was Protestant, my Southern Baptist church considered it a doctrine.

Jim

“…Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

That line speaks to me.

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;9412151]Sola Scriptura can’t be found in the Bbile because Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach it and the early Church never heard of it.

I think, Jim, that you will agree with me that the Apostlesand the early Church never expected there to be a schism, that divided Sacred Tradition into 2 camps.

Sola Scriptura is a little more than post-apostolic don’t you think? It’s from the 16th century Reformation.

I think there’s evidence enough that, perhaps not to the extent Luther proposed it, the ECF’s commonly felt that Tradition and scripture could not contradict.

Yes, all divisions in the Body of Christ are very sad, but Sola Scriptura was made a “pillar” of Protestantism by Martin Luther. He denied the authority of the ancient Catholic Church specifically and by inference the authority of the Orthodox Churches as well, since he rejected all the ancient Churches and formed his own, named for him. He could have become Oriental or Eastern Orthodox, but didn’t.

Would he then have been in schism, even so?

I’ve rummaged around the internet, and I find that SS is referred to as a doctrine. Here’s an example from that very reliable source, Wiki (with yet another definition of SS):

Yes, Jim, I admit I’ve used this font of reliability myself.

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

Other websites define SS as a doctrine as well. I’m puzzled as to how Protestantism could be founded upon a hermeunetic principle or how it could be a “pillar” of Protestantism. ??? When I was Protestant, my Southern Baptist church considered it a doctrine.

Yeah, but you were a heterodox Baptist.
Perhaps this might interest you:

angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Jim,

Read the footnotes in the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible. Do you read the bible much and notice the footnotes?

By the way, the bible was not canonized until Trent. Those earleir councils were really just synods and could not count for the entire church. The Hippo synod did not even consult the Roman church.

St. Augustine presided over Hippo (393) and Carthage III and IV (397, 419). Carthage III sent its decrees to Rome for approval.

This is why Trent was needed to formally canonize the entire bible including the Deuterocanicals which had become controversial at that time.

The Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442 affirmed the same canon, Trent laid the hammer down, affirming the ancient Vulgate.

Rob

The Catholic Church has used the terms “council” and “synod” interchangeably. Trent AFFIRMED the Vulgate, which was based on the canon of the local Council (Synod, if you prefer) of Rome (A.D. 382), Pope Damasus I presiding. Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Vulgate, published in 405, All that is necessary for the decrees of a regional council or synod to be ratified is the approval of the reigning Pope. Pope Innocent I affirmed the canon in a letter in 405.

Decree of the Council of Carthage III (397), St. Augustine presiding - introduction: QUOTE: Canon 46 (or otherwise 47). [It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the Divine Scritures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: [and the same canon laid down by the Councils of Rome and Hippo is repeated].

[Final sentence] Thus, [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea * may be consulted concerning the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs,when their anniversary days are celebrated. END QUOTE

QUOTE:

ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1442)

It [the Council of Florence] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John. END QUOTE

QUOTE: THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-63) - FOURTH SESSION

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES
The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,–keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that *the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. ** END QUOTE

 

[Jim_Dandy]

John,

It is in the last few paragraphs of Mark that the snake handling is mentioned. That part was added to the bible later. Most bibles have a footnote explaining that.

Rob

Nothing was added to the Bible – ever – since it was first compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church in A.D. 382.

The Longer Ending of Mark, the term scholars apply to Mark 16:9-20, is missing in some manuscripts,

The “Shorter Ending” is included in the RSV and the NAB (and other translations) with an indication that it is not canonical.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

“…Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”

That line speaks to me.

I agree that it’s nicely stated, but as Catholics we know that Christianity requires Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church to be complete.

 

[JohnHall]

I agree that it’s nicely stated, but as Catholics we know that Christianity requires Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church to be complete.

I tend to sway the protestant side and say that it is in the scripture alone -not that the early church did not compile the scripture, but they were not the writers of the account. Protestants and Catholics both agree that scripture is the word of God, so I reject the word of man since no where in the bible does it point to giving the keys to man (Jesus called peter a small pebble and upon this rock (Jesus) He (Jesus) will build his church.)
You do not have to try and convince me otherwise because the spirit of God has moved upon me and I know the truth, to Catholics, you feel I am deceived, but I feel it is the other way around. No hard feelings either way.

I’m sure someone will reply to this and I can assure you it will go no where. If not, good.

 

[Chuck_Finley]

Sola Scriptura can’t be found in the Bbile(sic)…

2nd Kings 22:10-13 - “And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not harkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.”

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 - “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works.”

Matthew 4:3-4 - “And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Matthew 4:5-11 - Then the Devil taketh Him up into the Holy City, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple, and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is Written Again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

Matthew 4:8 - “Again, the Devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”

Matthew 21:42 - “Jesus said unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our Eyes!”

Revelation 22:18-19 -“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

Proverbs 30:5-6 - “Every word of God is pure, He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar!”

Matthew 12:3-5 -“but He said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with Him?”

Matthew 19:4-5 “And He answered and said unto them, have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.”

Matthew 22:31-32 - “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God saying, I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living.”

Luke 10:26 - “He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?”

Matthew 22:29 -"…Ye do ERR, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the Power of God!"

Matthew 26:24 -“The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born”.

John 5:39 - “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.”

Isa 8:20 - To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.

 

[Chuck_Finley]

Jim Dandy:

Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach [sola scriptura] and the early Church never heard of it.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+ca.195) - “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”
(Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386) - “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395)- “…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.” (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa - “Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” (On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)- “Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.” (On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)

St. Augustine of Hippo - "What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.” (On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)

St. John Chrysostom (c.347-407) - "Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer to [our own] calculation; but in calculating upon [theological] facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things… "(Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII, p. 346.)

St. John Chrysostom - “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.”(Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 96, p. 118.)

St. John Chrysostom - "They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly. "(Homily 13 on Genesis.)

St. John Chrysostom - “There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.” (Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles [NPNF 1, 11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])

St. Basil the Great (c.329-379) - "Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. "(Letter 189 [to Eustathius the physician], 3, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. VIII, p. 229.)

St. Basil the Great - “What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture is sin.” (The Morals, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, p. 204.)

St. Basil the Great - “We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”
(On the Holy Spirit, 7:16.)

St. John of Damascus (c.675-c.749) - “It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments.”
(On the Orthodox Faith, I:2, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 37.)

 

[Chuck_Finley]

The claim was made that sola scriptura is not found in scripture and each of these are examples of sola scripture.

If they’re so easily rebutted, why don’t you rebut a few?

 

[JustaServant]

The claim was made that sola scriptura is not found in scripture and each of these are examples of sola scripture.

If they’re so easily rebutted, why don’t you rebut a few?

Catholics can use Scripture as well:

I. Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

 

[JustaServant]

III. Other Passages used to Support “Sola Scriptura”
John 5:39 - some non-Catholics use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. But when Jesus said “search the Scriptures,” He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say “search the Scriptures alone.” Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the Protestant claim of sola Scriptura.

John 10:35 - some Protestants also use this verse “Scripture cannot be broken” to somehow prove sola Scriptura. But this statement refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.

John 20:31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola Scriptura. Indeed, Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse “they searched the Scriptures.” This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God’s word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean’s use of sola Scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more “noble” or “fair minded,” meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase “don’t go above the line” was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don’t go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

Rev. 1:11,19 - Non-Catholics sometimes refer to Jesus’ commands to John to write as support for the theory that the Bible is the only source of Christian faith. Yes, Jesus commands John to write because John was in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was Jesus’ usual command). Further, such a commandment would be limited to the book that John wrote, the Book of Revelation, and would have nothing to do with the other Scriptures.

Rev. 22:18-19 - some Protestants argue against Catholic tradition by citing this verse, “don’t add to the prophecies in this book.” But this commandment only refers to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible which came 300 years later.

Deut 4:2; 12:32 - moreover, God commands the same thing here but this did not preclude Christians from accepting the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy or the New Testament.

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#scripture-III

 

[JustaServant]

Even as a Protestant I knew throwing out Scripture verses never convinced anybody of anything. That was my first clue something was wrong.

 

[JonNC]

Even as a Protestant I knew throwing out Scripture verses never convinced anybody of anything.

And it is even less convincing when the point one is trying to make is implicit, and not explicit. Indeed, even in those things explicit (real presence) proof-texting usually will not convince.
Sure, there are lots of verses that on can say implies sola scriptura, but the fact is those living in the Apostolic era didn’t need SS, as they had the Apostles there with them. The early Church did not need it because there was, for the most part, a general unity of belief, in large part because they had the writings of the Apostles, and people who had learned from them.

What no one expected, I believe, was a rift in the Church as great as the Great Schism.
I believe that, in many ways, SS is a response (for good or ill) to contradiction in Tradition.

That was my first clue something was wrong

Indeed, there is something wrong, as our division are evidence.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

And it is even less convincing when the point one is trying to make is implicit, and not explicit. Indeed, even in those things explicit (real presence) proof-texting usually will not convince.
Sure, there are lots of verses that on can say implies sola scriptura, but the fact is those living in tha Apostolic era didn’t need SS, as they had the Apostles there with them. The early Church need not need it because there was, for the most part, a general unity of belief, in large part because they had the writings of the Apostles, and people who had learned from them.

What no one expected, I believe, was a rift in the Church as great as the Great Schism.
I believe that, in many ways, SS is a response (for good or ill) to contradiction in Tradition.

Indeed, there is something wrong, as our division are evidence.

Jon

The fundamentalists I hung around in those days believed there was “power” in quoting Scripture. “Scripture never goes away void” they would say. Almost as if there was a kind of magic in it.