Sola Scriptura from the Protestant - not Catholic - View

[MarcoPolo]

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.

Well, not really because most Protestants do not accept the deuterocanon as Scripture, and many do not accept Theotokos or other doctrines recognized at the early councils.

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.

I can appreciate that, but Scripture necessarily demands interpretation, so does there not necessarily have to be an authoritative body to affirm this or that understanding in the face of debate? (of course Spirit guided as in Acts 15)

 

[Lincoln7]

the ending of the above post by marco polo is true. When i used to think of something conflicting with scriputre in the CC, i was comparing it to my interpretation of scripture. I see an authoriative body as being required to correctly interpret matters.

 

[PJM]

=Salvatore123;7848925]“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

My dear friend while your question may incite debate; the concept is ANTI-BIBLICAL; teaching against John chapters 20 and 21.

THEE MOST BASIS AND ESSENTIAL RULE of Bible study is that 'No one part of the Bible can contradict another part of the Bible". Were such even a slight possibility; the Bible would be WORTHLESS for teaching and learing ones Faith; never knowing what is valid or invalid.

Further it ignores history itself. Because the Bible was not written until the END of th first Century and not found in regular use until sometime after that; the Church was foinded and were the OT beliefs; on Word of Mouth [TRADITIONS], and not only GREW in this invironement, but prosphered.

And a third point: Even were it true [obviously it is not]; it would require in an absolute sense accepting the ENTIRE Bible which NO protestant denomination does.

This debate then seems to lack meaning

God Bless,
Pat

3. “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”.

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

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.”

 

[Salvatore123]

PJM,

I know “sola scriptura” is an invalid doctrine/principle that cannot withstand logic when interpreting the bible. That is why I started this thread.

I am not agreeing with “sola scriptura” - I am arguing against it!

My point, though, is that in most debates, as I clearly said in my original post, I see too many Catholics dismiss “sola scriptura” out of hand, with very little if any debate, and even worse, they do so without looking at the same definition of “sola scriptura” that most learned protestant apologists use.

Thus, I decided to pull, from several sources, a well rounded concept of “sola scriptura” that means more than “bible only”, and begin the discussion with the more expansive definition.

So far, bogeydogg has agreed to participate and has stated his first “sola scriptura” principle: that the bible is the FINAL arbiter of doctrine or an important issue in the event of dispute.

My follow-up to him moves back a few steps to first determining which bible we are going to use as the “final arbiter”, how how will we determine which bible to use as the “final arbiter”, and who gets to make an authoritative decision on arbitrating an answer to the dispute/issue.

I am anxiously awaiting his response to the questions I posed to him.

 

[Salvatore123]

. . . 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.

fhansen, I find that a very odd position for a Catholic to take. Consider the following:

1. Without a bible, how would we know that the Church was actually interpreting the word of God?
2. I have never suggested that man supplants the Church’s official interpretation of a particular biblical passage for a person’s private interpretation of that passage. I always defer to the Church’s teachings on the bible vs. my own (I don’t even have “my own” teachings on the bible - I rely solely on the Catholic Church).

But keep in mind that every Sunday, we hear readings from the bible and a homily by a priest. Some of those homilies - although they should all be in line with Church teaching - are sometimes somewhat astray on certain issues, especially when a priest tries to interpret a biblical passage in light of modern economic, social, and political events.

Look at the infamous Father Pfleger from Chicago. Francis Cardinal George suspended him from his priestly duties as pastor at St. Sabina Catholic Church just two weeks ago.

Thus, I respectfully submit that it is crucial that we not only follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church (as opposed to one particular priest’s interpretations), but keep up with our own bible readings and study with a prayerful spirit while doing so, in order to keep us vigilant lest we hear something at a Mass that “doesn’t sound quite right”.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen, I find that a very odd position for a Catholic to take. Consider the following:

1. Without a bible, how would we know that the Church was actually interpreting the word of God?
2. I have never suggested that man supplants the Church for an interpretation of the bible. I always defer to the Church’s teachings on the bible vs. my own (I don’t even have “my own” teachings on the bible - I rely solely on the Catholic Church).

But keep in mind that every Sunday, we hear readings from the bible and a homily by a priest. Some of those homilies - although they should all be in line with Church teaching - are sometimes somewhat astray on certain issues, especially when a priest tries to interpret a biblical passage in light of modern economic, social, and political events.

Look at the infamous Father Pfleger from Chicago. Francis Cardinal George suspended him from his priestly duties as pastor at St. Sabina Catholic Church just two weeks ago.

Thus, I respectfully submit that it is crucial that we not only follow the teachings of Holy Mother Church (as opposed to one particular priest’s interpretations), but keep up with our own bible readings and study with a prayerful spirit while doing so, in order to keep us vigilant lest we hear something at a Mass that “doesn’t sound quite right”.

I’m not saying we wouldn’t miss a great deal without the bible. In fact, the faith may well be crippled without it, so I’m not doubting Gods’ wisdom in providing it. But what I am saying is that the correct understanding of the gospel resides in the heart of the Church-and always has. As such even scripture can be viewed as part of her tradition, since her people wrote it. I guess what I’m saying is that we don’t need Scripture to tell us us what the Church thinks so much as we need the Church to tell us what Scripture means to say. And this seems to be almost the exact opposite of the position of many Protestants.

 

[johnbres2]

" I obviously solicit Protestants to support the doctrine of “sola scriptura”. "

Why would you say this? Regardless of how much you “dress up” the doctrine of sola scriptura, it is still just plain wrong. The fact that protestant researchers have weighed in and added various subtleties and shadings to it does not give validity to the doctrine. It is intellectually absurd to argue that the scriptures are the only infallible source of truth. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that you are “tolerating” the view to the extent you have. Luther was simply looking for a doctrine that would justify the rebellion, plain and simple.

By encouraging protestants to support that doctrine, you are encouraging error, which is a rather weighty move on your part.

 

[MarcoPolo]

By encouraging protestants to support that doctrine, you are encouraging error, which is a rather weighty move on your part.

I think Salvatore wants them to really think about how they would support it and eventually see that they can’t come up with anything airtight.

 

[PJM]

=Salvatore123;7854096]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.

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.

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).

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.

My freind these Three passages seem to address specifically, the issue of WHO authorized the Bible:

1. Mt. 16: 15 to 19 and verse 19 in particular

"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. ** 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

Verses 18 and 19 are to be taken togeather.

1. **Mt. 28:19-20 ** “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

**3. John 20: 19-22 ** "[19] On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”

Of the greatest significance are the words of Christ to Peter and the Apostles: “As the FATHER SENT ME [with all my Divine Powers and Authority] SO I SEND YOU.” That my friend is the Official Founding of the CC in and with the Power and Guidence of God Himself."

Also READ: John 14: 16-17 and John 17:15-19 for additional verification.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[bogeydogg]

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.

Before I said that I also said that Scripture is not the sum total of human knowledge. So if we are discussing an ecclesiastical matter not covered in Scripture then of course we must be sure that we are not in violation of Scriptural teaching but of course given that we must look elsewhere for guidance.

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.

I know of no Lutheran diocese that teaches the Table is a symbol merely or otherwise. The Table is the Body and Blood of Christ period. Furthermore the Doctrine of the Church as expressed in Lutheran Catechism is that the Body and Blood are underneath the bread and wine. For this reason the Reformers and especially the Baptists have broken from the Lutheran Confession because they feel there is no difference between Trans and Con.

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.

Agreed

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.

Agreed

continued…

 

[bogeydogg]

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).

The dispute about Scripture arises in that the Bishops stated clearly that they were receiving the Books already accepted as Scripture by the churches. That is when the Church at Ephesus received the Letter to the Ephesians they treated it as Scripture, and the earliest attestations of the Fathers tell us this is so. In fact Peter tells us this is so. That being said the authority of the Scripture was recognized by the Church long before it was Canonized thus the authority of the Church is derived from the Scripture and not the other way around.

After all how do we know that the Church has the authority to bind and loose sin? Because Scripture tells us so. How do we know that the Table is the Body and the Blood of the Lord? Because Scripture tells us so. How do we know to honor the Pastors and Bishops? Because Scripture tells us so? How do we know the Church is authoritative and founded by Christ? Because Scripture tells us so.

By Rome’s insistence that she dictates to Scripture what is right and wrong she inverts the confession of Scripture itself and undoes the authority upon which she stands. If teh Bible tells us that the Church has authority on Earth and history tells us that this teaching is accepted long before Marcion, then we have good reason to believe this is so. If however we believe this authority did not exist before Rome declared to be so then Rome is the source of Rome’s authority and not Christ. Therefore Rome undermines the very basis of her own authority.

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?

See above

continued…

 

[bogeydogg]

1. 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?

2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostles testified and we believe them by faith. The means of writing the Scriptures comes from God. This is the clear teaching of Scripture.

1. 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.

At the writing.

1. 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”?

God

1. 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?

Faith attested by the Apostles given to the Bishops passed along attested by the sacraments believed on by grace leading to salvation in sanctification. A continuing life of a changed heart which did not come from my own effort as I hated God with all that was in me before I was changed in an instant. As I studied and learned I came to see the long history fo the Church and saw clearly that there was good reason to believe the Christian Faith above and beyond anything I might feel about it.

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.

See above

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.

Christianity is a revealed faith handed to us by the Apostles. The substance of Christian Faith is to confess and believe the Faith of the Apostles. Therefore the Christian Faith rises from the Bible itself when the Holy Spirit enables the belief in the Apostolic Confession. Rome has added an unneeded confession in the Authority of the Church where Scripture is concerned and has given rise to those who believe in the Church and are less certain about the Bible as has been clearly shown on this thread.

Concerning Transubstantiation which it seems to me you brought up but never actually asked me about I think the dispute there is the role of the Priest and how what happened at Calvary is understood. Which of course means that while Transubstantiation may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible what one thinks about it is still a Biblical issue.

See this is fun, no?

God bless

 

[Salvatore123]

" I obviously solicit Protestants to support the doctrine of “sola scriptura”. "

Why would you say this? Regardless of how much you “dress up” the doctrine of sola scriptura, it is still just plain wrong. The fact that protestant researchers have weighed in and added various subtleties and shadings to it does not give validity to the doctrine. It is intellectually absurd to argue that the scriptures are the only infallible source of truth. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that you are “tolerating” the view to the extent you have. Luther was simply looking for a doctrine that would justify the rebellion, plain and simple.

By encouraging protestants to support that doctrine, you are encouraging error, which is a rather weighty move on your part.

John,

As Marco explained, I am not encouraging anyone to BELIEVE in sola scriptura as a correct principle or doctrine. I was encouraging protestants who already HOLD ON to sola scriptura, to please “support their position with valid arguments/contentions” so that we might have a valid discussion about it.

As I said in my initial remarks, I see “sola scriptura” talked to death, but no one seems to make any headway because I think that Catholics and Protestants alike never agree on a definition of exactly what they consider “sola scriptura” to be.

So, to be fair to protestants, I supplied one for them - one that is, by most accounts, much more encompassing than the usual “I believe in the bible and the bible alone”. That is what the translation is of “sola scriptura” from Latin to english.

I wanted to hear what proponents of “sola scriptura” had to say about backing up their belief in it.

I thought that was clear - if not, I apologize.

 

[guanophore]

After all how do we know that the Church has the authority to bind and loose sin?

I don’t know.

What exactly do you mean by this?

Because Scripture tells us so.

I don’t think so…

How do we know that the Table is the Body and the Blood of the Lord? Because Scripture tells us so. How do we know to honor the Pastors and Bishops? Because Scripture tells us so? How do we know the Church is authoritative and founded by Christ? Because Scripture tells us so.

That is true, but we would also know all these things without the Scripture, since these are the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

By Rome’s insistence that she dictates to Scripture what is right and wrong she inverts the confession of Scripture itself and undoes the authority upon which she stands.

This statement makes absolutly no sense to me at all.

What are you talking about “dictates to Scripture right an wrong”?

Scripture cannot “act” and behave in a manner that is right, or wrong…

The Church has a duty to warn the faithful about right and wrong behaviors. The Scriptures are not one of the flock.

If teh Bible tells us that the Church has authority on Earth and history tells us that this teaching is accepted long before Marcion, then we have good reason to believe this is so. If however we believe this authority did not exist before Rome declared to be so then Rome is the source of Rome's authority and not Christ. Therefore Rome undermines the very basis of her own authority.

If this were the case, you would be correct. However, since your premise is false, the conclusion is also. The Authority of the Church comes from Jesus. The Scriptures testify to it, but they are not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source.

See above

What I see is that you are not making very much sense.

 

[guanophore]

I wanted to hear what proponents of “sola scriptura” had to say about backing up their belief in it.

I thought that was clear - if not, I apologize.

Most of them confine themselves to the “non-catholic” section. They rarely come over here to apologetics.

 

[Salvatore123]

Christianity is a revealed faith handed to us by the Apostles. The substance of Christian Faith is to confess and believe the Faith of the Apostles. Therefore the Christian Faith rises from the Bible itself when the Holy Spirit enables the belief in the Apostolic Confession. Rome has added an unneeded confession in the Authority of the Church where Scripture is concerned and has given rise to those who believe in the Church and are less certain about the Bible as has been clearly shown on this thread. God bless

bogeydogg,

You may find this surprising, but I believe you still dodged my questions. So I will try to narrow them down to one or two, based on the totality of your answers.

You seem to readily accept the various “books of the bible as inspired because they were accepted by the various churches as inspired”.

But at the time these books were supposedly being “accepted”, other books were floating around and were being accepted by some as inspired and others as not.

As I clearly mentioned as examples, some churches or groups accepted the gospels of Peter and Thomas, while others did not.

If one does not have ONE central governing structure - which we Catholics call the Catholic Church - who (again - I am asking for the names of human beings) makes the final call on which “books floating around and being ‘put up for inclusion as scripture’” will be part of the 27 NT canon?

I can cite several synods and popes and councils where it is obvious various churches called “Catholic” accepted the current 27 NT books as canon, but it was not until Trent that it was formally declared (because of the threat of heresy by Luther and others during the Protestant Revolt) that only a certain list of 27 books should be considered part of the NT canon.

Even Luther began to question some of the 27 that all Christians today accept as inspired by God. To appease some of his followers, Luther backed down somewhat, but still relegated some NT books - such as James and Hebrews - as “back benchers” that we should read, but were in no way shape or form the equivalent of “God breathed” as the four gospels or the Acts of the Apostles.

You said:* “The Apostles testified and we believe them by faith.”*

But we do not have ONE writing or decision or declaration by ANY Apostle that lists which books should and should not be considered scripture. Oh certainly, some Apostles referred to certain writings as “scripture”, as Peter did regarding some writings of Paul.

But how does that reference by Peter:

A. State WHICH writings by Paul are scripture?

B. Declare that NO OTHER writing by Paul are scripture?

Take the books of James and Hebrews: you say that the Apostles accepted them as inspired by God.

Where do you find this being done? I cannot find ONE writing or document by anyone that says James and Hebrews are inspired by God, except writings and documents created by councils called together by either Popes or Councils or Synods that stated they WERE inspired by God.

Now how do you reconcile your statement, “Therefore the Christian Faith rises from the Bible itself when the Holy Spirit enables the belief in the Apostolic Confession”, when.

1. The Bible does not list which books should be IN the bible
2. The Bible did not even exist during the time of the apostles (except, perhaps, while John was alive - and even he probably did not have access to the other writings, considering he was exiled to a cave on the Isle of Patmos, which he says himself in writing Revelation).

bogeydogg - some human being or beings had to finally declare, with authority, that our current 27 NT canon was, in fact inspired.

You have not answered my question about this: which human or humans did this, when did they do it, by what authority did they have to do this, and how/when did they obtain this authority?

You readily acknowledged early on that the bible did not just “fall out of the sky”, pre-written by God. Well, we Catholics believe that, too.

But SOMEONE who mankind trusted had to make the final call. We call that “someone” the Catholic Church established by Christ.

I have yet to hear you name ANYONE who YOU trusted or believed to be the person or persons who made the “final call” on the 27 book NT canon.

P.S. - and yes, THIS discussion is “fun” because it seems we are finally discussing “sola scriptura” at a really deep level that is so often ignored in other threads, where the discussion quickly leads to ad hominem attacks and quickly degenerates into people attacking one another.

As long as we proceed as we have so far, I think you will become Catholic yet

 

[Salvatore123]

Most of them confine themselves to the “non-catholic” section. They rarely come over here to apologetics.

Perhaps someone who “hangs out” in both places will tell them we have a thread over “here” where we are not putting down anyone - we are having a good, honest-to-God discussion of “sola scriptura”.

 

[inkaneer]

Sola scriptura “works” for protestants because they think, whether they realize it or not, that God is either incapable of guiding fallible men into all truth for 2,000 years or they think that somehow fallible men will wrest control of God’s church from God and introduce the dreaded “traditions of men” instead of true doctrine, There is no other alternative. All this comes as a result of denying Church authority even though such authority is scriptural. After all it is scripture that calls the church the pillar and bulwark of truth. Scripture makes no such claim for itself. The best scripture can claim for itself is that it is ‘profitable’ for teaching, etc. so that man can be equipped to do good works. It never comes close to linking scripture with salvation. The irony of this all is that protestants have no problem with accepting and embracing such doctrines as the canon of scripture or the Trinity. Both of which are the products of men not scripture. As much as they would like to say that the Trinity is scriptural the fact is the way they understand the doctrine of the Trinity is definitely nonscriptural. The Trinity, as they understand it is defined in Greek philosophical terms of substance and essence and person. None of these concepts are found in scripture nor in Jewish philosophical thought. The Trinity doctrine, as protestants understand and accept it, is the result of men trying to explain the unexplainable. Since the doctrine is not contained in scripture but was devised by men, it is then, as according to protestants way of thinking, a “tradition of man.” Yet they accept it, embrace it and even defend it,

 

[PJM]

=Salvatore123;7856132]PJM,

I know “sola scriptura” is an invalid doctrine/principle that cannot withstand logic when interpreting the bible. That is why I started this thread.

I am not agreeing with “sola scriptura” - I am arguing against it!

My point, though, is that in most debates, as I clearly said in my original post, I see too many Catholics dismiss “sola scriptura” out of hand, with very little if any debate, and even worse, they do so without looking at the same definition of “sola scriptura” that most learned protestant apologists use.

Thus, I decided to pull, from several sources, a well rounded concept of “sola scriptura” that means more than “bible only”, and begin the discussion with the more expansive definition.

So far, bogeydogg has agreed to participate and has stated his first “sola scriptura” principle: that the bible is the FINAL arbiter of doctrine or an important issue in the event of dispute.

My follow-up to him moves back a few steps to first determining which bible we are going to use as the “final arbiter”, how how will we determine which bible to use as the “final arbiter”, and who gets to make an authoritative decision on arbitrating an answer to the dispute/issue.

My dear friend in Christ

I GOT your message.

My concern is that others my not. Please excuse my intureption:blush:

May god contimue to guide and lead your discussions,

Pat

I stay around awahile to see how it goes.

 

[John_Martin]

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

• just a note -
  When I was at seminary (a Lutheran Seminary), after the daily chapel it was a fairly standard practice over coffee to criticize the sermon of whomever preached that day, because all thought they had better understanding of the Scripture readings for the day. It always bothered me - how could we be hearing Christ if we were critical of the interpretation being presented to us - meaning we were not regarding the day’s preacher as representing Jesus. We all had the Scriptures on our side. So the person preaching to us was not our authority, but was simply a speaker of opinions.

John Mark