Sola Scriptura from the Protestant - not Catholic - View

[Salvatore123]

Tiberius,

sorry - Matthias is correct. Stephen was a Lucan disciple - can’t believe I let that one get through. I usually proofread better than that

bogeydogg - ??? still participating???

 

[Salvatore123]

bogeydogg - where are you???

 

[Salvatore123]

I am sorry bogeydogg left the discussion . . . I thought it was going well and had reached a point where “positions” were going to have to be taken

Perhaps another protestant following this thread will take up the flag

 

[Salvatore123]

It appears bogeydogg has left us, and I am sorry he/she did, as the debate was a civil one and I enjoyed it while it lasted.

I am hoping another protestant will pick up this thread and continue.

My intent with bogeydogg, after he responded to the last few questions was to go back to “the beginning”. And when I say “beginning”, I mean the writing of the first five books of the bible, commonly referred to as the Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses.

Now, remember the definition of sola scriptura I referred to when I began this thread - it was not one I made up. It was one taken from several sources - one of whom is James White, a prominent debater who favors the sola scriptura doctrine. As a refresher for any protestants (or anyone else, for that matter) who wants to take up the “pro-sola scriptura banner”, this is the definition that I, along with the opposing side in this thread, agreed on was a good definition:

*“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."*

If the reader notices, the above description of the sola scriptura doctrine is really two-fold: (1) the bible is the revelation of God’s word in all respects, and (2) the bible is the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church.

"The Bible is the revelation of God’s Word in all respects"

Now, I, as an orthodox Catholic of the Latin Rite, believe this part of the sola scriptura doctrine. How could I consider myself to be a Christian and follower of the God of Abraham if I did not believe that the bible was God’s revealed word?

In this thread, and in several others, I used a phrase that I “invented” several years ago while trying to discuss/debate the doctrine of sola scriptura (from this point on, I will designate "sola scriptura" as SS to save space/time - I apologize for the Nazi connotation; I certainly do not mean it in that manner): “delivery mechanism”.

So what does Sam mean by “delivery mechanism”?

When I use that phrase, I am referring to the manner in which God revealed his word to mankind. As far as I know, we can communicate words in one of three ways: (a) writing, (b) speaking, and (c) sign language (I include any types of signaling when I say “sign language”: smoke signals, Morse code whether by blinking light or tapping on an object, etc.).

To me, this is where SS really falls apart - at the very beginning.

Aside from the Ten Commandments (which I will assume were literally written by the “hand” of God and presented to Moses already written), I know of no other delivery mechanism by which any of the Pentateuch was “produced”. Although it is custom to think that Moses was the author of all of the Pentateuch, we know that cannot be the case, as Moses could not have written about his own death and what happened to the Israelites after his death. So right there, we have someone other than Moses contributing to the Pentateuch.

Based on a very rudimentary, cursory glance at Judaism, I believe all Jewish sects believe that the Pentateuch was inspired by God, but that is not so for other “groups” of books of the OT (such as what we refer to as “historical books” and “prophetic books”). But let’s go with what even all Jewish sects believe, because that is what all Christians believe: the Pentateuch, regardless of its human author, was written by a human being under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and wrote down, using his own personal style, the word of God as “delivered” to him by the Holy Spirit.

cont’d in next post

 

[Salvatore123]

cont’d from last post

For the adherents to SS, I think it incumbent upon them to answer the following:

1. Who (meaning the name of the human being) wrote the Pentateuch?
2. When was it written?
3. Which human being, or group of human beings, decided that the Pentateuch was, in fact, the inspired word of God?
4. When did the person or people listed in response to No. 3, state with authority that was recognized by other human beings, that the Pentateuch was the inspired word of God?
5. Using modern-day lingo, regarding the person or persons just named in Nos. 3 and 4 - who put them in charge? And when I say “in charge”, I am asking by what authority did this person or these people have to declare that the Pentateuch was the inspired word of God and that such declaration had to be believed in order to “be right” with God?
6. How did the person or persons listed in response to Nos. 3 and 4 decide that the Pentateuch was inspired by God? With this question, I am asking for a description of the process by which these five books were determined to be inspired versus other books that existed at the same time and might have “sounded” or “looked” as though they, too, were inspired.
7. Question No. 5 asked who put the person or persons in an authortative position to declare that the Pentateuch was the inspired word of God. The protestant (and the Catholic) will inevitably answer, “well God, of course”. But with this question - No. 7 - I am asking how do we know that the person or persons you listed in response to Nos. 3 and 4, really have the authority they both claimed and we now acknowledge as legitimate authority to declare a set of five books to be part of the OT canon?

You see, for me, and orthodox Catholic, I MUST admit I was not around when any of the above events took place. None of us alive today were. We all - Catholic and protestant alike - must rely on someone else to teach us and tell us that the Pentateuch was inspired by God.

Well, SS adherents say that they do not rely on any church, or group, or creed to determine anything about the bible. They say, in their own definition, that the Pentateuch is, " ‘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."

But SS adherents are in no different position than I am with respect to history and events. None of us were present when a decision was made (and a decision was certainly made) that the Pentateuch was inspired by God. In fact, even Moses was not even alive for any of the events of Genesis, and although he was alive for most of Exodus, he certainly did not write from memory about his birth and raising as a babe in the court of Egypt.

So just as someone had to tell me and SS adherents today the Pentateuch was inspired by God, someone had to tell the Jews who first “recognized” the Pentateuch as inspired by God.

For me, the source of the information regarding the contents of the bible is the Catholic Church. I must rely on it because without it, how would the Pentateuch ever been handed down through the ages to finally make it into my hands in the form of a book?

But the SS adherent will say that the Pentateuch is “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.”

So to them, I ask them to please answer the 7 questions I posed above.

I don’t know about their bibles, but mine does not talk to me when I open it. And I have not had my bible delivered to me from the hand of God himself. I purchased my bible in a store, I ensured that the bible was a “valid” version (based on assurances), and I read it, all the while knowing that I am reading God’s first words. As I have no authority to authenticate that what I am reading is accurate, that the translation was correctly made of the original Hebrew, that my Pentateuch is complete and not missing any passages, I have to rely, by necessity, on the Catholic Church to have done these things for me.

What or whom, SS adherents, do you look to for assurance that when you are holding the Pentateuch in your hand, you are truly holding the word of God in the first five books of the bible?

I truly hope an SS adherent will respond to the seven questions I posed above.

Regards,

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bogeydogg,

This is my first post on this thread. I have read a number of the posts and your responses just seem to call out for a wee-bit more focus… Let me explain…

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.

As you know, Christ never gave the Apostles the command to write anything. What He told them to do was proclaim the Gospel (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15) and then look what Paul says about preaching (as opposed to writing) in 1Cor 9:16. What we actually have here is an abundance of evidence that preaching was done before any writing took place. It is believed that the earliest book of the New Testament was Galatians written about 48-49AD. Assuming Christ ascended into Heaven in about 33AD that means that the oral spreading of the Gospel is about 15 years older. Considering that the last book of the NT was written sometime about 95 - 100AD (and during this time there were murderous persecutions) we have significant evidence that the early Catholic Church was sustained by the Holy Spirit prior to the completion of the NT. We call this Sacred Tradition, not to be confused with the traditions of men (and, a good example of this would be the 16th Century invention called Sola Scriptura from Martin Luther).

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.

Close, Bogeydogg, but, no cigar!

Let me direct your attention to a few appropriate sites that identify that you must do much more than you have identified:

Matt 7:21 where Christ says, “Not everyone who says, 'Lord! Lord!..” will get to heaven.

Matt 7:22 these people are turly besides themselvs - here they were casting out demons in the Lord’s name, and the Lord says, “… I do not know you”

John 3:5 Baptism is really necessary for salvation - and, that from no less an authority than Christ Himself. Protestants dismiss this with misapplications of Paul’s writing and calling baptism a needless ritual. So, it looks like SS is to be applied only when needed or convenient. Here is a link you may like: catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp And, this is just for starters.

Matt 22:39 and Mark 12:31 is where Christ tells us to love our neighbor as ourself. There is no theory about such love - we are implement this love like the Good Samaritan, who not only took pity on the wounded traveler, but actually DID several things to physically help him.

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.

Sounds like you have a vivid imaginaiton… Just what do you think Christ meant when He told Peter whatever he bound on earth was bound in heaven (Matt 16:18)? As you read this section you will note that Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom (and, there were not eleven duplicate sets to be handed out later.) The Keys are the visible symbol of the authority Christ has given. And, please note, there is no fine print as to you can only bind somethings or only lose certain other things - it is the total identification of Christ with His Church that is being revealed. “Unneeded confession”? Hardly.

The major practical problem with SS (besides it being a tradition of men) is that everyone gets to interpret Scripture as they please. Let me tell you, no one with any sense of learning interprets the Iliad and odyssey however they feel! There are specific areas that are truly difficult to understand - and those who have studied classical literature do not always agree. And, these are acknowledged works of fiction! Trying to really understand Scripture - and ‘winging it’ with personal interpretation puts one’s immortal soul in mortal danger.

The Catholic Church authorized the Canon of Sacred Scripture - both OT and NT in about 400AD - or about 1,200 years before Luther decided that seven of these OT books did not agree with the religion he wanted to create, so he removed them.

God bless

 

[Salvatore123]

I was curious as to what happened to bogeydogg and saw that his last post ANYWHERE on the CAF was in this thread on May 12, 2011, at 4:49 pm.

I sincerely hope nothing has happened to him.

 

[inkaneer]

I was curious as to what happened to bogeydogg and saw that his last post ANYWHERE on the CAF was in this thread on May 12, 2011, at 4:49 pm.

I sincerely hope nothing has happened to him.

His last post was on May 13, 2011 according to his profile stats. He has not been banned so I guess bogeydogg has boogied!

 

[Salvatore123]

I am disheartened that no one from the protestant side decided to take up the cause for “sola scriptura” - I was enjoying the discussion.

Nevertheless, I did want to add (for anyone interested) a couple of things points I discovered in both this thread and in others.

Protestants seem to be united on the idea or concept of sola scriptura, but they do not all travel the same path to reach the same definition as I outlined in the first post. I think I have narrowed their paths down to three:

1. History - a number of protestants have argued with me and others that one need only look to the “Early Church Fathers” to see what “they” held to be canonical, and based on what the “majority” of the ECF’s concluded, that is the basis for determining the canon.

Well, immediately, logic precludes this “history” approach being a path that upholds sola scriptura for several reasons:

A. Where does the bible say: “One should look to what “Early Church Fathers” (which necessarily means people not even mentioned in the bible itself) thought should be in the bible to determine what books should be in the bible”.

Answer: No where. And if one is an adherent to “sola scriptura”, then one cannot turn to anyone or anything outside of scripture itself to determine what should actually be scripture. That, by their own definition, would be a violation of the “sola scriptura” doctrine.

B. Even if one were to rely on “Early Church Fathers”, who determines which ECF’s to look to?

Answer: As no ECF’s are mentioned in the bible, it is impossible to use the bible to determine who the ECF’s were. Therefore, you are, again - by definition - relying on “man” (who is fallible, according to protestants) to tell us which ECF’s we should rely on. But in doing this, we have added two levels of fallibility to the mix: (a) the conclusion that all of the ECF’s were fallible men, and (b) the conclusion that protestants who are picking the ECF’s to bolster their argument are fallible men as well. So this violates “sola scriptura”.

C. Finally, look at the way protestants “use” the ECF’s to bolster their “sola scriptura” doctrine: they select only those ECF’s who accepted the 66 book canon and they disregard the ECF’s who accepted the 73 book canon!!!

This argument really turns logic on its head. Instead of saying “we adopted the 66 book canon because the ECF’s did so”, the protestants are, in effect, saying, "we adopted the 66 book canon, and we have the following ECF’s who support our decision!!! Well what about the other ECF’s who followed the 73 book canon - don’t their opinions matter? Apparently not. But even if they were as important as St. Augustine, the protestants dismiss someone as important as St. Augustine by saying he was “fallible” and "simply because he was a great Early Church Father does not mean he ‘got everything right’ ".

Well, no argument here! In fact, I doubt if ANY Early Church Fathers understood EVERY dogma (that is, the “truths”) of the Catholic Church and accepted/believed them to the degree that we do today. Remember, the truth was and is always the truth - regardless of time. Disseminating it to man is done on “God’s timetable” - not man’s. No one said in the bible that all of God’s “truth” would be given to man by X time or Y date.

P.S. - When it comes to looking to history for the answer to the biblical canon, I have often wondered why, of all people, the protestants would rely on Jews to determine a Christian canon. I mean no disrespect to Jews, but the fact is, they rejected Christ as the Son of God, and that belief is THE central tenet of the Christian faith.

So, the protestant will rely on the Jews to determine for them the OT canon, even though that same group of believers reject all 27 books of the NT canon. This does not sound too authoritative to me . . .

I will follow up with the other two “paths” I have seen advanced.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sam,

Good luck in trying to generate interest here on SS - I, too, am rather disappointed with the lack of defense of this idea from the people who should know it best - and are betting their immortal souls on how they personally interpret the Word of God. Now, if that is not scarry, I do not know what is!

God bless

I am disheartened that no one from the protestant side decided to take up the cause for “sola scriptura” - I was enjoying the discussion.

Nevertheless, I did want to add (for anyone interested) a couple of things points I discovered in both this thread and in others.

Protestants seem to be united on the idea or concept of sola scriptura, but they do not all travel the same path to reach the same definition as I outlined in the first post. I think I have narrowed their paths down to three:

1. History - a number of protestants have argued with me and others that one need only look to the “Early Church Fathers” to see what “they” held to be canonical, and based on what the “majority” of the ECF’s concluded, that is the basis for determining the canon.

Well, immediately, logic precludes this “history” approach being a path that upholds sola scriptura for several reasons:

A. Where does the bible say: “One should look to what “Early Church Fathers” (which necessarily means people not even mentioned in the bible itself) thought should be in the bible to determine what books should be in the bible”.

Answer: No where. And if one is an adherent to “sola scriptura”, then one cannot turn to anyone or anything outside of scripture itself to determine what should actually be scripture. That, by their own definition, would be a violation of the “sola scriptura” doctrine.

B. Even if one were to rely on “Early Church Fathers”, who determines which ECF’s to look to?

Answer: As no ECF’s are mentioned in the bible, it is impossible to use the bible to determine who the ECF’s were. Therefore, you are, again - by definition - relying on “man” (who is fallible, according to protestants) to tell us which ECF’s we should rely on. But in doing this, we have added two levels of fallibility to the mix: (a) the conclusion that all of the ECF’s were fallible men, and (b) the conclusion that protestants who are picking the ECF’s to bolster their argument are fallible men as well. So this violates “sola scriptura”.

C. Finally, look at the way protestants “use” the ECF’s to bolster their “sola scriptura” doctrine: they select only those ECF’s who accepted the 66 book canon and they disregard the ECF’s who accepted the 73 book canon!!!

This argument really turns logic on its head. Instead of saying “we adopted the 66 book canon because the ECF’s did so”, the protestants are, in effect, saying, "we adopted the 66 book canon, and we have the following ECF’s who support our decision!!! Well what about the other ECF’s who followed the 73 book canon - don’t their opinions matter? Apparently not. But even if they were as important as St. Augustine, the protestants dismiss someone as important as St. Augustine by saying he was “fallible” and "simply because he was a great Early Church Father does not mean he ‘got everything right’ ".

Well, no argument here! In fact, I doubt if ANY Early Church Fathers understood EVERY dogma (that is, the “truths”) of the Catholic Church and accepted/believed them to the degree that we do today. Remember, the truth was and is always the truth - regardless of time. Disseminating it to man is done on “God’s timetable” - not man’s. No one said in the bible that all of God’s “truth” would be given to man by X time or Y date.

P.S. - When it comes to looking to history for the answer to the biblical canon, I have often wondered why, of all people, the protestants would rely on Jews to determine a Christian canon. I mean no disrespect to Jews, but the fact is, they rejected Christ as the Son of God, and that belief is THE central tenet of the Christian faith.

So, the protestant will rely on the Jews to determine for them the OT canon, even though that same group of believers reject all 27 books of the NT canon. This does not sound too authoritative to me . . .

I will follow up with the other two “paths” I have seen advanced.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Hi, Sam,

Good luck in trying to generate interest here on SS - I, too, am rather disappointed with the lack of defense of this idea from the people who should know it best - and are betting their immortal souls on how they personally interpret the Word of God. Now, if that is not scarry, I do not know what is!

God bless

Yeah, same here. If I believed in SS, I’d be all over this thread. It seems like the best shot at a reasoned, careful debate. However, I abandoned the idea rather quickly as my wife (girlfriend at the time) explained the Catholic idea of Apostolic Succession and then we began looking at the Protestant arguments behind rejecting it. The Catholic reasoning was solid. The Protestant… not so much. And it seemed clear that the Catholic motive was to seek and defend the Truth and unity of the Faith while the Protestant “Reformers’” motives were to defend opinion at the expense of unity, so… even as I began to look into what sola Scriptura was about, it didn’t appeal to me. Unity is far, far too important. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t have been the last thing that Jesus begged for from the Father on our behalf before He offered Himself for our salvation.

I recently heard on the radio an account of the synod where Luther, Zwingli, and the others tried to find unity on what the Eucharist is. Luther said, “‘Hoc est corpus meus.’ That is my Scripture; I need no other.” Zwingli used his own verse to deny the Real Presence in favor of a mere symbolism. They could not agree at all. So they said, “We have sought the answer in Scripture, what are we to do now?” I couldn’t help but think of the one passage to which they dared not look at that synod: Matt 18:15-17, “…take him to the Church…” They rejected the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and instantly, they lost the charism of unity. They denied the Chair of Peter on which depends the unity of all Christendom, as St. Cyprian of Carthage reminds us, and in a moment the unity of that Rock eluded them. “Strike the shepherd, scatter the sheep…”

 

[pablope]

I recently heard on the radio an account of the synod where Luther, Zwingli, and the others tried to find unity on what the Eucharist is. Luther said, “‘Hoc est corpus meus.’ That is my Scripture; I need no other.” Zwingli used his own verse to deny the Real Presence in favor of a mere symbolism. They could not agree at all. So they said, “We have sought the answer in Scripture, what are we to do now?” I couldn’t help but think of the one passage to which they dared not look at that synod: Matt 18:15-17, “…take him to the Church…” They rejected the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and instantly, they lost the charism of unity. They denied the Chair of Peter on which depends the unity of all Christendom, as St. Cyprian of Carthage reminds us, and in a moment the unity of that Rock eluded them. “Strike the shepherd, scatter the sheep…”

Hi, T…do you know where you heard that program? Or a link to it? I would like to hear that program.

 

[Crumpy]

I recently had a one-on-one “discussion” with an evangelical cousin of mine, whose husband is a churchless minister/preacher.

My own Catholic know-nothing attitude is, that sola scriptura means that all we should have to do at most is pass out bibles to people to convert them, for their salvation, because that it all the authority that anybody should need, right? Why do we need more authority than the Bible? Well, she disagreed, I had already deleted her “sufficiency of scripture” essay.

I think the need for tradition is obvious. Scripture can be interpreted this way and that way, and they can’t both be correct. Tradition may include things that were passed on by Christ and the apostles, as the CC says, but I have no idea what those things were and no one has ever told me what they were. Tradition at a minimum means theoretically and practically, the proper interpretation of scripture.

Magisterium is the living tradition of the Church.

Having said this, in my own way, we need the Bible, tradition, and a teaching authority.

But, notice, every “church” has these as does the CC. It’s not an we-have-it-they-don’t matter, they all have their own tradition and “magisterium.” If they reject the Pope and the Catholic Bishops, then they merely substitute their own leader as the final “authority.”

These “discussions” are merely the foothills of the more important discussion of what is the correct tradition and the correct magisterium. The Bible doesn’t condemn either tradition or true teachers and hardly dismisses the need for both of them.

Yeah, I know that I don’t belong in this thread. I just can’t help myself.

 

[Crumpy]

In the category of a sheep in wolf’s clothing, here is the teaching of Charles C. Ryrie (as published in the Ryrie Study Bible):

under “Attitudes toward the Bible” “2. Romanism. Bible is the product of the church; therefore, the Bible is not the sole or final authority.” “6. Orthodoxy. The Bible alone is the ground of authority.”

So, “the Bible alone is the ground of authority” because Charles C. Ryrie says so.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tiberius 1701,

Excellent post! And, like Pablope, do you happen to have a link on this Luther - Zwingli exchange?

Hey - that is a great graphic at the bottom of your post! Congratulations! As a grandfather of four … the best advice is pre-natal care! Boy? Girl? Now, don’t keep us guessing! My daughter sent us copies of her ultra-sound pictures … and they went in the baby-book!

My wife and I are praying for you and your wife … and young one. By the way… when my wife was pregnant, I was in the Army - and this was pre-ultra-sound… so this guy announces, “Half of the twins are diagnosed on the table!” That was about as close as I got to fainting!

God bless

Yeah, same here. If I believed in SS, I’d be all over this thread. It seems like the best shot at a reasoned, careful debate. However, I abandoned the idea rather quickly as my wife (girlfriend at the time) explained the Catholic idea of Apostolic Succession and then we began looking at the Protestant arguments behind rejecting it. The Catholic reasoning was solid. The Protestant… not so much. And it seemed clear that the Catholic motive was to seek and defend the Truth and unity of the Faith while the Protestant “Reformers’” motives were to defend opinion at the expense of unity, so… even as I began to look into what sola Scriptura was about, it didn’t appeal to me. Unity is far, far too important. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t have been the last thing that Jesus begged for from the Father on our behalf before He offered Himself for our salvation.

I recently heard on the radio an account of the synod where Luther, Zwingli, and the others tried to find unity on what the Eucharist is. Luther said, “‘Hoc est corpus meus.’ That is my Scripture; I need no other.” Zwingli used his own verse to deny the Real Presence in favor of a mere symbolism. They could not agree at all. So they said, “We have sought the answer in Scripture, what are we to do now?” I couldn’t help but think of the one passage to which they dared not look at that synod: Matt 18:15-17, “…take him to the Church…” They rejected the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and instantly, they lost the charism of unity. They denied the Chair of Peter on which depends the unity of all Christendom, as St. Cyprian of Carthage reminds us, and in a moment the unity of that Rock eluded them. “Strike the shepherd, scatter the sheep…”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Crumpy,

Yes, just as soon as that use that pejorative ‘Romanism’ the cat is out of the bag in displaying their bias. Truly, it is about as close as you can get to a knee jerk reaction.

God bless

In the category of a sheep in wolf’s clothing, here is the teaching of Charles C. Ryrie (as published in the Ryrie Study Bible):

under “Attitudes toward the Bible” “2. Romanism. Bible is the product of the church; therefore, the Bible is not the sole or final authority.” “6. Orthodoxy. The Bible alone is the ground of authority.”

So, “the Bible alone is the ground of authority” because Charles C. Ryrie says so.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Hi, T…do you know where you heard that program? Or a link to it? I would like to hear that program.

Hi, Tiberius 1701,

Excellent post! And, like Pablope, do you happen to have a link on this Luther - Zwingli exchange?

Hey - that is a great graphic at the bottom of your post! Congratulations! As a grandfather of four … the best advice is pre-natal care! Boy? Girl? Now, don’t keep us guessing! My daughter sent us copies of her ultra-sound pictures … and they went in the baby-book!

My wife and I are praying for you and your wife … and young one. By the way… when my wife was pregnant, I was in the Army - and this was pre-ultra-sound… so this guy announces, “Half of the twins are diagnosed on the table!” That was about as close as I got to fainting!

God bless

I’ve heard it the past two weekends (I think Saturday afternoons around 3?) on Ave Maria Radio, though I think it’s probably an EWTN program, but I keep coming in the middle so I don’t know the title or anything. It’s not by the priest who talks about ancient heresies, though, it was someone else. I really wish I could be more specific, but…

And… (Drumroll Please…)

It’s a boy! (our first child!)

 

[Tiberius1701]

Okay, I have an update… I checked both the EWTN and Ave Maria schedules, and the only thing that would make sense is that it was maybe a St. Joseph’s Radio Presents thing… But, I just looked over there at their listing of the SJRP shows for this month, and none of them sound right. So I don’t know what to tell you guys… Sorry.

 

[Salvatore123]

Continuing . . .

1. “A book is the sacred word of God if it preaches Christ”

This second “path” of reliance on the doctrine of “sola scriptura” (SS) by protestants follows that of Martin Luther himself. Luther taught that if a book “preached Christ” it was canonical. If it did not “preach Christ”, it was not.

Again, SS immediately fails based on logic alone because, as with the first “path”, we have to rely on fallible men to make determinations for this second “path” to work:

A. This method requires that a fallible man read a book and then determine if it “preaches Christ”. Well, what constitutes “preaching Christ”? Of course, one one has to have (a) faith in the man telling you what the book says, and (b) one has to then read the book itself and conclude the same thing as the man who originally told you that it did, in fact, “preach Christ”.

It should be easily seen that this approach has led to thousands of splinter groups of so-called Christianity because of the various disagreements as to which books “preached” and did not “preach” Christ.

If I say a book “preached Christ”, why would you rely on me in concluding that? I would hope none would, because not only am a very fallible man, but I am a nobody in the determination of those books that should or should not be part of God’s sacred word.

You see, as soon as you replace the name “Martin Luther” with any other name of a person who is proclaiming that a particular book “preaches Christ”, you are, by definition, violating SS, because the person you are relying on is NOT designated/authorized by God to make that decision, and that person is NOT named in the bible or given authorization by the bible to make such a determination.

B. Even a cursory reading of all of the books of the NT will reveal that some “preach Christ” much more than others. So, are we to conclude that the 27 NT canonical books are on a scale where there are some books that are “more canonical because they preach Christ than others that do not preach Christ as much”? This ultimate conclusion of this fallacious argument caused quite a bit of grief for Luther, as he began to question several NT books that no other protestants of his time did: James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. And the ironic thing about Revelation is that it is the ONLY NT book that specifically states it was written while the author was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit!

C. Finally, the simplest “undoing” of this path is the premise itself: the person claiming that a particular book “preaches Christ and is thus canonical” is relying on a principle of determination that cannot be found anywhere in the bible. I have challenged every protestant I have spoken/written to, to find support for this “path” of proving canonicity and to date, I have found no one who has produced a response.

Thus, we are left with a second “path” of SS that is false.

My next post will be the third “path” of SS that I have noted in debates/discussions with protestants on SS.

But I will not end it there.

I think it only fair to protestants AND to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” that a Catholic discusses the “linchpin” that seems to catch many Catholics off-guard when they are confronted with it. And I am willing to admit - it is not as easily dismissed as the three “paths” I am discussing in this thread. But I felt it only fair to deal with it, and I mean really deal with it “head on”.

2 Timothy 3:15-17: "And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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."

The above verse is cited by protestants more than any other for their doctrine that the bible, and the bible alone, is “sufficient” to equip man with ALL that he needs for salvation.

But before tackling it, I will add the final “path” that I could glean from protestants in their defense of SS.

I again thank everyone for both reading and contributing. I hope this is instructional (and I sincerely hope a proponent of SS joins in soon ).

Dominus Vobiscum +

 

[guanophore]

I am disheartened that no one from the protestant side decided to take up the cause for “sola scriptura” - I was enjoying the discussion.

You might want to try posting in non-Catholic section. In my experience, most SS’s dont’ come over here to Apologetics. I have had many of them tell me that they thought they were restricted to the NC part of the forum.