Sola Scriptura from the Protestant - not Catholic - View

[Salvatore123]

“Sola scriptura” is discussed quite a bit on the CAF. I find the Catholic perspective, however, left wanting. It is wanting because most Catholics define it by merely translating two Latin words and then concluding that those two Latin words are the extent of “sola scriptura”.

For some Protestants, that might be sufficient. But for a learned Protestant apologist, he will expound on the definition of “sola scriptura”, and if the Catholic apologist is not careful, he can find himself backed into a corner from which he often cannot get out.

With this thread, I obviously solicit Protestants to support the doctrine of “sola scriptura”. But I also solicit Catholics to supplement my own arguments against it, as I readily admit I can always use help.

Sola Scriptura - What do Protestants believe?

Sola Scriptura

What is “sola scriptura” and what do protestants (or, at least a Reformed Baptist) think it is?

1. “Sola scriptura”, translated literally from Latin into English means “only scripture”. This is what most Catholics (especially those engaged in apologetics debates/discussions with Protestants) say it means - that man need only refer to the Bible for his salvation.

In reviewing literally dozens of online debates, scripts of debates, and various websites, I believe that if a Catholic apologist relies only on the above limited definition, he is setting himself up for immediate attack. To begin a debate, both sides need to have some common ground. I think that common ground needs to be an accurate definition/explanation of the meaning of “sola scriptura’ from the perspective of a prominent Protestant debater.

1. In my review described above, I came to the following “definition/description” of what someone like a James White (of Alpha & Omega Ministries) believes. Note that their definition/description is not a one-liner; it is a fairly evolved doctrine to which they adhere fervently. The following are White’s lines taken verbatim from his website, along with several other quotes from other Protestant apologists:

“We believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects. We believe the Scriptures to be “God-breathed” and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority, His power.

“Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority."

Sola Ecclesia

1. “Sola scriptura” adherents then move into an area where many Catholic apologists are not expecting to go: the doctrine of “sola ecclesia”. Most Catholic apologists expect, at this point, one or more biblical passages that support “sola scriptura”. Instead, the Protestant apologist will want a further concession from a Catholic apologist regarding “sola ecclesia”.

As with “sola scriptura”, “sola ecclesia” is simple to define literally from Latin to English: “only church”. But Protestants, to their credit, correctly define it from a Catholic perspective:

“Rome can infallibly define the extent of Scripture and the meaning of Scripture. Rome also claims the ability to infallibly define both the extent of ‘Tradition’ as well as the meaning of ‘Tradition’.”

Tradition vs. tradition

1. The Protestant will then secure another admission from the Catholic apologist - that Catholics cite the Bible for the proposition that the Church clearly teaches that not all teachings of God’s doctrines/dogmas are contained in the Bible. And as the Catholic Church is the “final arbiter” regarding the extent and interpretation of the Bible, then it can also infallibly declare doctrine/dogma about the Bible when the need arises (such as rampant heresies the Church had to deal with in the past - Montanism, Arianism, Protestant Revolt, etc.).

The Catholic apologist will distinguish between “tradition” and “Tradition”.

The word “tradition” means, in general, handing on or handing down something to another. Tradition (with a capital “T”) refers to the handing on or handing down of divine revelation. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition form one sacred deposit of God’s word. Sacred Tradition is usually handed down orally, beginning with Christ to his Apostles, and continuing with the Apostles to their successors to this day. In other words, the Catholic Church holds that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition occupy the same “level” of importance and divine truth.

A competent Protestant apologist will readily cite the following passage that Catholics use to support their belief in Sacred Tradition:

2 Thess. 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

Although the Protestant may not cite this next verse, a good Catholic apologist in support of the existence of oral Tradition will:

John 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

cont’d

 

[Salvatore123]

continuing . . .

1. Taken together, the Protestant, if he is knowledgeable of the Catholic faith, will sum up the Catholic position on “sola scriptura”:

Christ began a visible Church while he was on earth and installed St. Peter as its head. He promised that whenever the Church taught on certain matters in a certain way (ex cathedra regarding faith and morals), the Holy Spirit would prevent such teachings from heresy. In addition, the Catholic Church claims to have the God-given authority (as bestowed upon St. Peter and the other Apostles) to teach his word, relying on passages such as:

Matt 16:18-19 “And I say to you: You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

John 16:13 “When He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will teach you all truth.”

John 21:15-17 “When therefore they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He saith to him: Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him again: Simon, son of John, do you love me? He said to him: Yes, Lord, you know I love you. He said to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, do you love me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Do you love me? And he said to him: Lord, you know all things: you know that I love you. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

1. Now that they have given their complete definition/description of “sola scriptura”, and they have secured admissions from the Catholic apologist that we Catholics subscribe, to a certain extent, “sola ecclesia” - in the sense that the Catholic Church is needed to infallibly define, interpret, and teach Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition - they move in for their “kill”.

Why Resort to “extra-biblical” traditions, when the Bible has all that one needs for salvation?

The protestant who defends “sola scriptura” will always cite the following:

2 Tim. 3:16-17 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

cont’d

 

[Salvatore123]

continuing . . .

The Catholic Response

Before discussing the last bible verse about the bible supposedly being “completely sufficient” for salvation, I respectfully submit that Catholics and Protestants need to at least discuss how the bible came into existence. If we cannot reach that common ground, what good is it to discuss a verse from the bible?

In EVERY debate/discussion I have had with protestants on “sola scriptura”, they all claim that “all scripture is self authenticating”, that the NT writers “obviously knew what scripture was because they specifically refer to ‘scripture’, and best of all (from the mouth of James White himself) “I do not have to believe that a group of men in a little town in Italy a millennium and a half after the birth of Christ were somehow divinely inspired to work through all the issues and come to a final and infallible decision.”

Before discussing anything in the bible, one must determine where the bible came from, how it was compiled, by whose authority it was determined to be fixed, and who determined the books that should or should not be part of the bible.

For those protestants who are reading this and who subscribe to the definition of “sola scriptura” as I stated it above, I sincerely ask (and you may take as a “given” that we Catholics all trace the source of scripture back to God - when I ask questions below, I am asking about human beings):

1. Who decided which books should form the OT canon?
2. When was the OT canon determined to be closed?
3. By what authority did the people you listed above in response to No. 1 decide the OT canon?
4. As God did not deliver the OT “ready made” as he did with the Ten Commandments given to Moses, what (and this is MY phrase for the process) “delivery mechanism” did God employ in getting his word to mankind?
5. You say that “all scripture is self authenticating”. This means, by definition, that a book - which is an inanimate object - performs an intelligent act: it “authenticates” itself as being authentic. Can you please describe for me what is the difference between what you describe as “self authenticating” and me writing a book and then adding a closing sentence that states, “This book was written while I was under the influence of the Holy Spirit”.
6. I have read where Protestants use some “formula” for determining if a particular book is or is not inspired. Looking at Philemon (and I mean no sacrilege or disrespect in what I am about to say), can you please point out for me what, in that book, “jumps out at you” so that by just reading it, you can conclude that it is definitely inspired. I chose that book of the bible because, although I do not have any doubt that it is inspired, I also say that it is one of the least inspiring books I have ever read. Yet, when I read* Imitation of Christ *by St. Thomas a Kempis, considered one of the most beautiful books about Christ ever written and also one of the best selling books of all time, I have no doubt that the author had inspiration from God to write something so beautiful. But it is NOT inspired so as to be part of the bible.
7. I see Protestants frequently refer to NT authors referring to “scripture” in a general sense, as though they knew what was and was not part of the bible. They also point to such references as “proof” that even the NT authors recognized “scripture” when they saw it. Considering the NT did not exist and the books of the NT were still being written, how could the NT authors determine what was or was not part of the NT canon?
8. Who decided which books should form the NT canon?
9. When was the NT canon determined to be closed?
10. By what authority did the people you listed above in response to No. 8 decide the NT canon?
11. As with the OT, God did not deliver the NT “ready made” as he did with the Ten Commandments given to Moses. Therefore, what kind of “delivery mechanism” did God employ in getting his word to mankind?

I sincerely hope a Protestant adherent to “sola scriptura” takes me up on this post. I used their definition of “sola scriptura” - not the Catholic definition or understanding of it.

I am willing to “play ball” on their court and with their ball

 

[guanophore]

I sincerely hope a Protestant adherent to “sola scriptura” takes me up on this post. I used their definition of “sola scriptura” - not the Catholic definition or understanding of it.

I am willing to “play ball” on their court and with their ball

This being the case, I am curious why you did not post it on the non-Catholic area. This is where most of the SS hang out.

There is already a thread running on this you might enjoy called Sola Scriptura, and why Protestants like it.

You might consider having yours merged with it. We have been joined by a Reformed Christian who has addressed most of these in the last 24 hours.

 

[Salvatore123]

guanophore,

I started this thread, separate from others, for one primary reason that I mentioned at the outset of it: Catholics do not usually use the same “definition” of sola scriptura as do Protestants.

Most Catholics think sola scriptura means “bible only”. But as I pointed out, using a well-known Protestant apologist, sola scriptura means much more to them than “bible only”.

THAT is why I started it . . . and hope that some sola scriptura adherents respond to it.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore,

I started this thread, separate from others, for one primary reason that I mentioned at the outset of it: Catholics do not usually use the same “definition” of sola scriptura as do Protestants.

Most Catholics think sola scriptura means “bible only”. But as I pointed out, using a well-known Protestant apologist, sola scriptura means much more to them than “bible only”.

THAT is why I started it . . . and hope that some sola scriptura adherents respond to it.

[ posits that all things necessary for salvation, and concerning faith and life are clearly laid down in the Scriptures so that any ordinary believer may understand them. Scripture stands alone as the highest authority on matters of faith and life for the believer, and is the ultimate court of appeal.

It does not posit that Scripture is the only authority that may bear on a persons life, or that the church (as in the gathered body of true believers) is not an authoritative interpreter of those Scriptures. But we deny that a specific church or see or progression of men has the sole authority of interpreting those very Scriptures.

Here is the proof of this:…

Greetings brethren,

I have read through some of the material on this thread and am quite shocked at the amount of straw men that are being set up to take down ‘sola scriptura’!

First, let us clearly define the terms:

Sola Scriptura

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7847347&postcount=174)

As you wish, but I think your wish has already been granted.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Salvatore, a couple thoughts come to mind when reading your posts. First, Wikipedia defines sola scriptura as such:*Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. (Wikipedia, Sola Scriptura)*Or John MacArthur:*Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.*So as to your point #1, there are indeed Protestants who believe that is the definition of sola scriptura. So it’s not really inappropriate if a Catholic apologist argues against the position since many Protestants advance that position.

But lets be honest, in exercise, the Protestant position of sola scriptura is also an anti-Church authority position regardless of whether or not James White is willing to embrace this or that “tradition” he deems acceptable.

Secondly, all definitions I’ve seen of sola scriptura, including White’s custom definition, belie the fact that the Bible is written in something called language. Language necessarily requires interpretation. Whatever Protestant tries to impose a derogatory notion of sola ecclesia on the Catholic Church for interpreting Scripture diffuses his own capacity to interpret Scripture with any reliability whatsoever. In reality, the Protestant seeks a stalemate if this is pointed out—he believes no one can infallibly interpret Scripture—which is why he rejects the Church’s capacity to do so—yet he places his own interpretations above the very Church he claims places itself above Scripture. The Protestant misses the reality of the need to interpret language. If he realized that fact, he would discard sola scriptura immediately as a non-sensical ruse that is about not-following-a-church’s interpretations rather than embracing how God reveals Himself to mankind.

Thirdly, I think the Catholic should accept the monicker sola ecclesia only if it is clarified that the Church is Spirit-driven, and in the final analysis, it is only the Holy Spirit that is infallible, speaking through the Church. The Catholic should say that the Protestant’s argument against the Catholic notion of infallibility is an argument against the Spirit’s infallibility, since it is the Catholic claim that it is the Spirit who speaks infallibly through the Church. On this point, the Protestants anti-infallibility argument can also be redirected at the Apostles, who claimed to be Christ’s ambassadors and speak on His behalf.

Fourthly, I agree with you that the assembly of Scripture itself is one of the death-knells to all Protestant definitions of sola scriptura. As Dr. Peter Kreeft articulated when describing his own perspective of the formulation of the Bible—an effect cannot be greater than its cause—yet this is exactly what sola scripturists do when they acknowledge divine guidance to the Scripture but not the very Church that identified its contents. By their own argument, a fallible Church assembled the Bible, which renders it unreliable at its foundation. However, I do disagree that the Catholic apologetic is wanting on this issue because I’ve heard many Catholics bring up the assembly of Scripture when arguing against sola scriptura.

 

[Salvatore123]

Marco,

Thank you for joining the discussion.

Note that I do not find as wanting Catholic arguments - I find as wanting the Catholic apologist (in general) not willing to give ground on the protestant’s definition (as I set forth in my original post to start this thread) of sola scriptura and the protestant’s immediate jump to sola ecclesia.

I realize that many people define sola scriptura in many ways. I simply wanted to start a discussion using the most expansive defintion of sola scriptura I could find (ala White) and before getting into a discussion about sola scriptura itself - starting with how the bible got started.

After all - without the bible, sola scriptura is meaningless, as we would not have scripture.

I really hope I have some “takers” who are willing to honestly answer the questions I posed. I don’t think they are derogatory or condescending in any way. I do, however, think they will force the protestant apologist’s hand into acknowledging things he or she will not like to acknowledge.

 

[Lincoln7]

Your argument is well versed, after prolonged study it was this outline that helped to convince me of the claims of the CC.

Sola Scriptura is about foundations. its not as you say “bible only” but what should be the final place to go for doctrinal basis, in reaction to the Magisterum.

Thats how i always used to see Sola Scriptura until not so long ago, it was where do we go as a whole to get the final understanding and basis for any belief.

But as you have adressed in your main points; where did that come from etc.

 

[Salvatore123]

Lincoln,

I am very, very happy for you and sincerely welcome you to the Catholic Church!

I am please that you realized the Catholic faith makes sense, and I am please that what I posted earlier is the type of reasoning that led you to become Catholic (even though it was from someone other than me - at least I seem to be focusing on a “sore spot” for protestants: foundations).

Again - welcome, my friend.

 

[bogeydogg]

OK I’ll jump in.

I know of no reputable protestant theologian who would ever say that the Bible contains the sum of human knowledge (which I have heard non-thinking protestants say) nor that it is self authenticating.

I don’t consider MacArthur to be reputable I don’t care how many stations he is on.

To me Sola Scriptura means that in cases of dispute the source to which to turn FINALLY is Scripture. But if you read my other posts you will see that i regularly refer to Augustine and Scripture together so I guess I am a bad protestant. Of course I belong to a protestant denomination but I am far from being Reformed, although that was not always the case.

However, I will also say that I find it extremely ironic that those protestants who stump for a crass definition of SS will generally be the first to play games with the Bible on things like Apostolic Authority, The Church’s ordination from Christ to forgive sin, the Body and Blood on the Altar, the efficaciousness of baptism, the mode of baptism, etc. And the supreme irony is that these people will then turn to Calvin, Zwingli, etc to argue their point thus supplanting the Tradition of the Fathers with the Tradition of the Reformers.

I notice also that not one protestant has responded to your very well thought out post.

 

[bogeydogg]

In reply to your questions about the origin of the Canon and by who’s authority was it compiled the answer is simple.

The Church embodied in the Bishops over seen by the power of the Holy Spirit received those writing which had already been accepted very early on as Scripture. We need only have a history book to see this is true as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Athanasius, Jerome, and of course Augustine all commented on the content of the Scripture and some long before any councils were held to establish the Canon. Of course we also have the testimony from the first Bishop of Rome St Peter that the writings of St Paul were Scripture. So there has always been this understanding that certain writings of the Apostles were Scripture we know this. And those protestants who act as though the Bible was dropped out of Heaven on a parachute do a grave disservice to the Bible and create a straw man which is easily toppled by the pagans; an error made in their zeal to hold the Bible as being the Word of God strangely enough.

But I think that Rome also brings a disservice to this conversation.

Namely in that, even though I know this is not what the Church confesses, there are some who act as though the Scriptures are authoritative BECAUSE the Church says so, and that is not true. The Bishops in determining the Canon confessed that they were receiving these books not determining so it seems plain, at least to me, that to the Fathers they felt the Books were authoritative on their own and the Church merely assented to the authority already in the Scripture. However inherent authority and self authentication are not the same thing.

The confusion in this matter on the protestant side rises with Martin Luther (sigh) who argued that the Church had perhaps erred in its selection when of course I think (a) no such selection had taken place and (b) Luther later backed far away from those statements but the damage was done. In all the ensuing confusion the protestant Church forgot the same God who is authoritative over the Church guided the Bishops in the receiving of the texts and so in a sense God picked His own books through human agents. Luther, in arguing the way he did, opened the issue of canonicity quite unnecessarily and so we now have what I think is an abbreviated Bible being read by the vast majority of protestant Christianity. After all as soon as one person plays fast and loose then why not every one.

But for me the writings of the fathers seems to make it clear that the Bible was held in utmost reverence and no one should ever think it otherwise.

And for those who argue for a self-authenticating Bible completely divorced from the authority of the Bishops, well they should read more.

God Bless

 

[MarcoPolo]

God who is authoritative over the Church guided the Bishops in the receiving of the texts and so in a sense God picked His own books through human agents.

Very good. I think 2 natural questions from here are:

On what basis does a sola scripturist identify this or that council as having the Spirit’s authoritative guidance?

And when did that Church lose the Spirit’s guidance in determining other authoritative matters? If they are reliable for the canon, why not their other teachings?

 

[bogeydogg]

Very good. I think 2 natural questions from here are:

On what basis does a sola scripturist identify this or that council as having the Spirit’s authoritative guidance?

I can’t answer that because I believe in the Authority of the councils. BTW so does eveyone else which is why protestant churches will affirm that Pelagianism, Donatism, Montanism, Socinianism, Arianism, Marcionism, etc are heresies.

And when did that Church lose the Spirit’s guidance in determining other authoritative matters? If they are reliable for the canon, why not their other teachings?

Here we arrive at what SS actually means. The question comes down to if any church teaches a doctrine opposed by Scripture then Scripture is the final (not sole but final) arbiter of such things. For myself I lean toward acceptance of the traditions which is why most of my Baptist friends think I am actually Catholic and just attend a Lutheran Church because I can’t commit.

God Bless

 

[fhansen]

“We believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects. We believe the Scriptures to be “God-breathed” and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; they rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority, His power.

“Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority."

This is all irrelevant since, even if we agree that Scripture’s infallible, the interpreter must be infallible to know what Scripture means to say. IOW, how do we know which of the various interpretations of infallible Scripture is infallible? SS remains a bankrupt, unworkable doctrine-wishful thinking.

1. The Protestant will then secure another admission from the Catholic apologist - that Catholics cite the Bible for the proposition that the Church clearly teaches that not all teachings of God’s doctrines/dogmas are contained in the Bible. And as the Catholic Church is the “final arbiter” regarding the extent and interpretation of the Bible, then it can also infallibly declare doctrine/dogma about the Bible when the need arises (such as rampant heresies the Church had to deal with in the past - Montanism, Arianism, Protestant Revolt, etc.).

But the whole point is that Catholics simply don’t believe in SS to begin with; they don’t need to cite Scripture; the Church is the authority, “the pillar and foundation of truth”-and so, as such, the Church doesn’t even need to be aware of that particular verse from 1 Tim 3:15-because it would be true whether or not it was ever written down. But, since it was written down, she may use it as desired to defend against those who take it upon themselves to use Scripture against her doctrines. The Church can interpret Scripture because even Scripture is an integral part of her lived tradition.

 

[Lincoln7]

When looking at Church Councils, it is often said that by comparing them to scripture (seen as the final authority) that they have “erred” to quote Luther. This was too a view that i once held. But now I will say instead; “is the Council in contradiction with the bible? Or is my *own interpretation *in conflict with it?” It is not for me to interpret in definitive areas, to interpret it corretly, there needs to be an infallible voice to do so. This i now see as the Church.

 

[Salvatore123]

bogeydogg,

Thank you for participating - I mean that! I hope many can learn from this discussion.

My plan is to discuss each of your assertions/points that I consider to be different from those held by orthodox (little “o” intentional) Catholics.

1. You said: “To me Sola Scriptura means that in cases of dispute the source to which to turn FINALLY is Scripture.”

Analyzing your definition of “sola scriptura”, you seem to be saying that if people dispute something regarding Christian theology, then the final source for resolving the dispute is scripture.

As you can see from my opening remarks, I chose to work on determining the canon of scripture and how to interpret/use it before we even get to whether it should be the only or sole or final arbiter of disputes.

I hope this is approach is okay with you.

As you profess to be Lutheran, let’s use a dogma of the Catholic faith with which I know Lutherans do not profess: transubstantiation. I think at best, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation; at “worst”, they believe it is merely symbolic and nothing more.

But as I said with my plan on discussing “sola scriptura”, before using a real-life dogma, I want to focus on scripture in general.

Let’s assume that for the purpose of transubstantiation, the OT canon - whether it is the Catholic or Protestant - does not make a difference, as the OT does not deal with Christ’s body and blood directly. Only the NT does that - particularly, in John 6.

So, we have an “agreement” on the canon of the part of the bible that would “govern” our interpretation of transubstantiation: the 27 books of the NT, which are the same in all Christian denominations.

I just put forth a dogma on which we certainly have a dispute: whether transubstantiation occurs.

Based on what you said in your definition of “sola scriptura”, we would have to turn to the 27-book NT canon to use as the “final arbiter” on what Christ meant in John 6: was he speaking literally or figuratively?

But before we discuss the dispute, I think we have to still discuss the foundation of what we will use to resolve the dispute with some degree of finality. You say it is the bible - I say it is the Catholic Church telling us what the bible says on the subject.

So, I will begin with some assumptions to serve as a premise to our discussion (please tell me if you disagree with any of them):

A. We both believe that the Gospel of John was written by a human being, and that it did not “fall out of the sky” and it was not handed to a man named John by God pre-written.

B. We both believe that the human being who wrote the Gospel of John did so while inspired by the Holy Spirit to “deliver” the word of God in written form to all mankind.

Now, my questions to you are (as you made a positive declaration on the issue of “sola scriptura”, I think it only fair that you defend your declaration):

1. How do you know that the Gospel of John was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I am sure you already know that Revelation is the only book in the NT canon where the author (who, according to tradition, happens to be the same “John” who wrote the Gospel of John) explicitly states that he was writing while inspired by and under the authority of God. In no other NT book does the author claim to be writing an inspired text. I am not saying they were not inspired (I believe they are), nor am I saying the NT authors did not know if their writings were inspired (I don’t think anyone knows for sure if they did or not).

What I am saying about the Gospel of John (which showcases our “dispute”) is that someone other than the author determined, decided, recognized - use whatever term you wish - that the Gospel was inspired by God (whereas other so-called gospels were not accepted as inspired, such as the gospels of Thomas and Peter).

1. As you acknowledged in your initial posts in this thread that the NT canon was not delivered to human beings “pre-written”, nor did it “fall out of the sky”, who - and I mean a human being or human beings - did you rely on to convince you that the Gospel of John was inspired by God?
2. Following up on Question No. 2 above, what delivery mechanism (that is my invented phrase that I use when discussing how God’s word was made available to mankind) do you contend was used by God to get his word into the hands of men?
3. When did the “delivery mechanism” you just described in response to Question No. 3 take place? I don’t necessarily mean an exact day. But I am hoping for a specific year.
4. By what authority did the person or persons act to lead you to conclude that the Gospel of John was inspired by God? When I say “by what authority”, I mean - to put a modern spin on it - “who put him or them in charge”?
5. What “characteristic” or “charism” or “manner” about the person or persons you named in response to Question No. 2 above, led you to accept their claim that the Gospel of John was inspired by God?

You see, as an orthodox Catholic, I believe the Gospel of St. John was written by a human being under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit because the Catholic Church told me it was. It is that simple for me (and all other orthodox Catholics).

What I am trying to solicit from you is the basis for your conclusion that the Gospel of St. John was the inspired word of God.

Remember: as we are talking about the inspired word of God, we cannot have room for error or supposition or guessing. I “expect” you to be as sincere and sure of your responses to the questions I posed, as I am in asking them.

I look forward to your responses.

 

[Salvatore123]

This is all irrelevant since, even if we agree that Scripture’s infallible, the interpreter must be infallible to know what Scripture means to say.

fhansen - I agree completely with this. Sola scriptura causes a “circular headache” because once one argues “scripture is infallible”, you need the person interpreting scripture to also be infallible; but if the interpreter is not infallible, how does one know that the scripture the interpreter is referring to is an infallible interpretation? And on, and on, and on . . .

I do, however, disagree with the following statement you make - but I hate to use the word “disagree” because it is not so much a disagreement as it is with the manner in which you phrase something (and I have seen it before cited by Catholics debating sola scriptura and in humble opinion, it is often used to undercut a perfectly good argument against the false doctrine of “sola scriptura”):

. . . they [meaning Catholics] don’t need to cite Scripture; the Church is the authority, “the pillar and foundation of truth”- and so, as such, the Church doesn’t even need to be aware of that particular verse from 1 Tim 3:15 - because it would be true whether or not it was ever written down.

The danger with being against sola scriptura is that one can go so far as to say that a Catholic does not even need the bible because we have the Church to teach us what truth is.

While it is true that we needed the Catholic Church to (1) determine the canons of the OT and NT and (2) to accurately interpret what the bible said and meant, I respectfully submit that we would not have much of a Church if we did not have a bible. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire writers to write down God’s sacred words if preserving them in writing was not going to be needed?

Our entire liturgy comes almost exclusively from some part of the bible. And although Christ did not command that anyone write down anything He said, the Holy Spirit was obviously “wise” to inspire writers of both canons to ensure that we were passing down God’s word accurately.

This is the reason why I cited “sola scriptura” along with “sola ecclesia” and mentioned how protestant apologists often use them against us. They can use our own disdain for “sola scriptura” (and it is correct to reject such a false concept) and make us out to be a Church who not only no longer needs the bible, but also a Church who teaches its people that they do not need to read the bible because “the Church will do it for you”.

That, my friend, is the danger of being too vocal against “sola scriptura”.

 

[fhansen]

This is the reason why I cited “sola scriptura” along with “sola ecclesia” and mentioned how protestant apologists often use them against us. They can use our own disdain for “sola scriptura” (and it is correct to reject such a false concept) and make us out to be a Church who not only no longer needs the bible, but also a Church who teaches its people that they do not need to read the bible because “the Church will do it for you”.

That, my friend, is the danger of being too vocal against “sola scriptura”.

Maybe, except that I no longer have a problem with the Church doing it for me. At one time few people could even read the bible. And the early Church knew and was proclaiming the gospel before even one word of the NT was written. This doesn’t mean that Scripture’s unnecessary. Like you say, the HS has His purposes for ensuring that Gods’ word was recorded in written form, but if I had to make a choice, knowing what I know now, between the knowledge of God and His will that I would receive via the Church, versus whatever truth I could glean from the bible without the Church, I would choose the Churchs’ teachings every time, knowing my own interpretation would be unavoidably faulty.

 

[Kay_Cee]

To me Sola Scriptura means that in cases of dispute the source to which to turn FINALLY is Scripture.

Interesting definition.

But suppose someone disputes that in cases of dispute the source to which to turn finally is scripture? How do we resolve this dispute? Where does scripture say that in cases of dispute, the source to which to turn finally is scripture?