Sola Scriptura Silence

[Randy_Carson]

I agree, viewed that way one could arrive at your conclusion for that passage.

However, there’s a word used to describe the method you’ve employed to arrive at your conclusion, which, if known, causes one who recognizes your method to quickly reject your view:
eis•ege•sis \I-se-jē-ses\ noun

plural eis•ege•ses -ˌsēz\

[Greek eis into (akin to Greek en in) + English exegesis — more at IN]

(1892)

: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas — compare EXEGESIS

Heh…after couple of years and a few thousand posts as an online apologist, I’m familiar with the term, thanks.

As a Protestant, I should think you’d allow me some freedom to engage in some personal interpretation of the Bible, no? After all, wasn’t the Holy Spirit promised equally to all believers? Haven’t I been led into all truth just as you have? So, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

(Trust me, I don’t actually believe a word of that.)

However, perhaps you could explain how you are not engaging in eisegesis when you read “sufficiency” into 2 Tim 3:16-17.

It simply isn’t there, and this has already been demonstrated repeatedly in Catholic - Protestant debates over the past 30 years or so.

Sorry, this is a non-starter for your side. There simply is NO verse that says that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer. Not one.

And the Writings are able to do that without a magisterium, as there was no magisterium back then. To think otherwise, is to engage in anachronism.

Acts 2 - Peter by his own authority infallibly interprets and applies the Psalm to Judas Iscariot’s “bishopric”. The Apostles vote in Matthias.

Acts 15 - The Council of Jerusalem sets aside the commandment of God concerning circumcision which was part of Mosaic Law. No one objects to their authoritative and infallible decision. This is the proto-Magisterium at work.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Bad analogy and a very weak argument. It’s incumbent on you to justify 40,000 denominations because you are a proponent of sola scriptura, which is the cause and source of 40,000 denominations. If your doctrine is true, you should have no trouble explaining why it has led to the complete chaos of 40,000 denominations. If you can’t defend your doctrine, why is it your doctrine?

I expect you’ll deflect this question as you do the rest of them.

This is correct.

Howie wants us to accept sola scriptura but he cannot account for (or even honestly admit to himself) the fruit of sola scriptura which is the fracturing of the body of Christ into thousands of denominations.

Even Martin Luther recognized that a Pandora’s Box had been opened when he wrote:

“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament [Real Presence], another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.” (De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.)

“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” (Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.)

“If the world lasts, it will be necessary, on account of the differing interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith, we should receive the [Catholic] councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge.” (Letter to Urlich Zwingli.)

 

[Howie01]

Randy Carson:

Heh…after couple of years and a few thousand posts as an online apologist, I’m familiar with the term, thanks.

It was just a reminder.
Randy Carson:

However, perhaps you could explain how you are not engaging in eisegesis when you read “sufficiency” into 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Where I have used the word “sufficiency.”

I’m allowing the passage to speak by itself.
Randy Carson:

It simply isn’t there, and this has already been demonstrated repeatedly in Catholic - Protestant debates over the past 30 years or so.

Shall I post the definition for “bias?”
Randy Carson:

Sorry, this is a non-starter for your side. There simply is NO verse that says that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer. Not one.

C’mon, Randy, you just blow them off—no protestant has won a debate with a Catholic concerning this for 30 years; remember?
Randy Carson:

Acts 2 - Peter by his own authority infallibly interprets and applies the Psalm to Judas Iscariot’s “bishopric”. The Apostles vote in Matthias.

Acts 15 - The Council of Jerusalem sets aside the commandment of God concerning circumcision which was part of Mosaic Law. No one objects to their authoritative and infallible decision. This is the proto-Magisterium at work.

And since those “proto-magisterial” declarations all false teachings and heresies vanished?
Randy Carson:

Howie wants us to accept sola scriptura but he cannot account for (or even honestly admit to himself) the fruit of sola scriptura which is the fracturing of the body of Christ into thousands of denominations.

I’m not here to convince you of SS, but to defend it.
Randy Carson:

Even Martin Luther recognized that a Pandora’s Box had been opened when he wrote:

From Godfrey:As early as the seventeenth century the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin noted the serious theological divisions in the Roman church and asked why the pope did not settle these disputes if his office was so effective. Such theological problems are certainly much greater today than in Turretin’s day and the question remains unanswered as to why the pope is so ineffective.

We should not be surprised that there are divisions in the church. Christ and His apostles predicted that there would be. The Apostle Paul told us that such divisions are useful. He wrote: “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Differences should humble us and drive us back to the Scriptures to test all claims to truth. If we do not accept the Scriptures as our standard and judge, there is indeed no hope for unity.

The church must have a standard by which to judge all claims to truth. The church must have a standard of truth by which to reform and purify itself when divisions arise. The church cannot claim that it is that standard and defend that claim by appealing to itself. Such circular reasoning is not only unconvincing; it is self-defeating. Rome’s argument boils down to this: we must believe Rome because Rome says so.

 

[Howie01]

Ferde Rombola:

Bad analogy and a very weak argument. It’s incumbent on you to justify 40,000 denominations because you are a proponent of sola scriptura, which is the cause and source of 40,000 denominations. If your doctrine is true, you should have no trouble explaining why it has led to the complete chaos of 40,000 denominations. If you can’t defend your doctrine, why is it your doctrine?

I expect you’ll deflect this question as you do the rest of them.

It’s a good analogy, Ferde, which is why you’re deflecting it.

As far as defending my doctrine, I can defend it. What you’re asking me to do is defend the doctrine of others. That fact escapes you.

If Scripture is responsible for the varied beliefs in Protestantism, then the magisterium is equally responsible for the varied beliefs in Roman Catholicism; and that fact escapes you as well.

Your arguments are inconsistent in that the criticisms you level against SS can be leveled against your magisterium.

 

[centurion210]

Quote from Howie01 post # 462
Quote:
**Originally Posted by Randy Carson
However, perhaps you could explain how you are not engaging in eisegesis when you read “sufficiency” into 2 Tim 3:**16-17.
Where I have used the word “sufficiency.”

I’m allowing the passage to speak by itself.

***From Godfrey:
As early as the seventeenth century the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin noted the serious theological divisions in the Roman church and asked why the pope did not settle these disputes if his office was so effective. Such theological problems are certainly much greater today than in Turretin’s day and the question remains unanswered as to why the pope is so ineffective.

We should not be surprised that there are divisions in the church. Christ and His apostles predicted that there would be. The Apostle Paul told us that such divisions are useful. He wrote: “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Differences should humble us and drive us back to the Scriptures to test all claims to truth. If we do not accept the Scriptures as our standard and judge, there is indeed no hope for unity.

The church must have a standard by which to judge all claims to truth. The church must have a standard of truth by which to reform and purify itself when divisions arise. The church cannot claim that it is that standard and defend that claim by appealing to itself. Such circular reasoning is not only unconvincing; it is self-defeating. Rome’s argument boils down to this: we must believe Rome because Rome says so.***

Response:
Thank You for proving some of the points you questioned in my last post. In the above quote from Dr. Godfrey, did you forget to list the sources for his statements? Not everyone will go and look up the document. Some might just copy the above quote and just start using it without knowing where it came from. This is part of the problem that I talked about.
Also, on pages 2 and 3, Dr. Godfrey does indeed use the word “sufficiency” while “teaching” us the meaning of 2 Timothy 3. He completely ignores, ***“you, however continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them” ***Dr. Godfrey says the Scriptures “thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work”. Scripture doesn’t say what he says that it says. You asked us to read this document as proof of SS; so when you tell Randy you didn’t say sufficiency, is not quite accurate.
In the same context on page 3, Dr. Godfrey has a quote from St. John Chrysostom. His source for the quote is a book by another writer named William Whitaker. This was the point in my other post; why not use the quote from St. John Chrysostom. His writings may be found quite easily. It would be a lot easier for your reader to be able to see in what context Chrysostom may have used it. Such careless use of material has led to much confusion about what the Catholic Church teaches. To quote the late Bishop Sheen, “There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church for what she teaches but there are millions who hate the Church for what they think teaches”
It would be great if you could use your obvious talents to study the church you think is so wrong. I said before the information is all there. You’d be a lot better off reading St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and all the other great Catholics through the ages. How can you be objective if you only read someone else’s opinions? Maybe then you will be able to appreciate and understand the inseparable connection between Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

 

[Benadam]

The primary purpose of divine authority post public revelation is to preserve it’s meaning as deposited by the Apostles. In as much as the meaning is kept true to the original teaching the Holy Spirit can draw from the church’s memory as it journey’s to Christ and reveal deeper meaning. Both the moment in time is revealed and the meaning of the original Christ events as well. The Church’s eyes are lifted up and she is able to see what’s ahead and prepare the faithfull.

According to Protestants the Scriptures are the sole divine authority on earth because men are too corrupt and not capable of preserving the True Faith.

According to Catholics, Sola Scriptura is inherent to Christian communities that break away from the Church and it’s authority.

Which enterpretation of our current condition on earth is true?Does the silence make more sense if one condition is true rather than the other?

It’s a given that the early Church was not sola scriptura. If the authority exercised through the teachers of the early Church was destined to be bound by the written Word then a transition took place and divine authority was exercised through man a last time at some historic moment. What would that last deed be that divine authority was exercised on earth? The profound implications attached to sola scriptura are not evident outside of scripture let alone within scripture.

The Sacred text doesn’t expose error by direct accusation and it isn’t tempted to teach what it’s authors did not see as if they taught from blindness. So it makes sense that it would be silent about sola scriptura because it’s characteristic for the Word to expose error by revealing what is rather than what isn’t. This kind of exposure is how sola scriptura is seen in scriptures.

Now, if error is exposed by the expression of Truth it follows that the Truth of sola scriptura would expose the error of the tri-legged system that preserves the True Faith as claimed by Catholicism. What I mean is that the passages that express the authority of scriptures as the sole preserver of the True Faith would by contrast expose means Catholicism preserves the True Faith as error.

There are passages within sacred scripture that express the tri-leg chair the Catholic Church claims that also expose sola scriptura as error.

If sola scriptura is true then the expression of it within scripture would by contrast would expose the Catholic way errant.

That the scripture is silent is a proof in it’self that sola scriptura is not the means by which the True Faith is preserved. That there is no evidence that sceripture is able to preserve the True Faith is strong evidence against it as well.

The Magisterium/Sacred Tradition/ Sacred Scripture trinity of expressions of Truth is expressed in Scripture as the early Church is descibed to possess all three co-operating together expressing and preserving the True Faith.

The evidence favors one over the other overwhelmingly.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

reason why scripture alone though there are many i’ll take it one step at a time:

we have had different conversations which has prompted me to even start a thread on one topic which is of osas.

i have been opposed on this issue when scripture tells that it is God who saves us, He calls us and we will not be lost. that is God’s promise found in the Gospel. my friends with all sincerity and love, why don’t you trust God for your salvation?

yet within the catholic church there are many teachings to which i was involved briefly in discussion on a different thread of the brown scapular.

*The brown scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is the most popular devotion involving wearing of a scapular in the Catholic Church today. In the Middle Ages, a scapular was a full-length garment (apron) worn over other clothing by monks and nuns, the color signifying the particular religious order. The brown scapular was revealed to St. Simon Stock, the Prior General of the Carmelite order in 1247. The Virgin Mary appeared to him and gave him the scapular and associated promises as a result of his pledge of complete loyalty to her (known as a privilegium). The smaller version of the scapular is worn by lay associates.

Saints and popes throughout the ages have worn and encouraged wearing of the brown scapular, and many miraculous events have attested to the value of the sacramental (the scapular worn by Blessed Pope Gregory X, who died in 1276, was found intact in 1830).

Practices

1. Wear the Brown Scapular (or scapular medal) after enrollment*
2. Observe chastity according to your state in life
3. Recite the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary or five decades of the Rosary daily (usual requirements)

**Promises/Benefits

1. “…whosoever dies wearing this (the brown scapular) shall not suffer eternal fire” (Virgin Mary’s promise to St. Simon)**
2. Partial indulgence granted by Pope Benedict XV to those who devoutly kiss the scapular
3. Sabbatine Privilege: release from purgatory on the first Saturday after death (revelation by the Virgin to Pope John XXII in 1322). Please note that much controversy has surrounded this ‘promise’ since it promotion by some early Carmelites. The modern Order does not recognize this as legitimate. It is mentioned here for informational purposes.

• Enrollment involves a priest blessing the first brown scapular with this prayer:
  Receive this blessed habit; praying the most holy Virgin, than by Her merits thou may wear it without stain; and that She may guard thee from all evil and bring thee to life everlasting. R. Amen. By the power granted me, I admit thee to the participation of all the spiritual good works, which through the gracious help of Jesus Christ are performed by the religious of Mount Carmel. In the name of the Father, and the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit. R. Amen.

May the Creator of Heaven and earth, Almighty God, bless + thee; Who has deigned to unite thee to the confraternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel. We beseech Her, in the hour of thy death, to crush the head of the old serpent; so that thou may in the end win the everlasting palm and crown of the heavenly inheritance. Through Christ our Lord. R. Amen.

After enrollment in the Confraternity of the Scapular, the scapular may be replaced by a Carmelite scapular medal worn around the neck. The enrollment is for a lifetime and need not be repeated, and new scapulars do not need to be blessed again but scapular medals do.*

in bold is a promise of eternal security if this scapular is worn upon one’s death!

but yet some won’t stand on the promise of God’s security of salvation:shrug: one state’s oh you have to this to keep it when one did not do a thing to gain it. things like this is why sola scriptura is important so that we not stray away from infallible truths of God.

God bless

Jesus is Alive

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m not here to convince you of SS, but to defend it.

Then why don’t you defend it. In another post you said it you would not defend it, or words to that effect.

From Godfrey: As early as the seventeenth century the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin noted the serious theological divisions in the Roman church and asked why the pope did not settle these disputes if his office was so effective. Such theological problems are certainly much greater today than in Turretin’s day and the question remains unanswered as to why the pope is so ineffective.

By whose standards is the Pope ineffective? The last time I looked we are still the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Pope’s job is to maintain the unity of the Church by preaching the truth and insisting the truth be preached all over the world by the one true Chuch.

As to “theological divisions in the Roman [C]hurch” there are no divisions in the Church. There are heresies as there have always been and always will be, as Scripture tells us. The difference between the Church and protestantism is, the heresies against Catholic teaching vanish with time under the leadership of the Pope and the Magesterium and the power of the Holy Spirit. The divisions in protestantism add yet more sects to the mess.

We should not be surprised that there are divisions in the church. Christ and His apostles predicted that there would be. The Apostle Paul told us that such divisions are useful. He wrote: “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Corinthians 11:19).

Precisely. Which approval is revealed by the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church, which is led to the truth by the Holy Spirit. You can’t possibly allege the truth is ever revealed to any protestant sect, which, collectively, have 40,000 versions of ‘the truth.’

Differences should humble us and drive us back to the Scriptures to test all claims to truth. If we do not accept the Scriptures as our standard and judge, there is indeed no hope for unity.

We can agree to those words, but we come to radically different conclusions. Mine are supported by Scripture; yours come from the 500 year old heresies of men.

The church must have a standard by which to judge all claims to truth. The church must have a standard of truth by which to reform and purify itself when divisions arise.

Of course, and she does. “Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 16:19. There is nothing anbiguous about those words. They are clear and unassailable. They are the Lord’s standard, the standard which guarantees as true, the infallible teaching of the Church.

Such circular reasoning is not only unconvincing; it is self-defeating. Rome’s argument boils down to this: we must believe Rome because Rome says so.

That is a lie. Perhaps inadvertent on your part, but a lie nonetheless. You have been taught the truth. It becomes your lie when you deny it.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

It’s a good analogy, Ferde, which is why you’re deflecting it.

Shrug, schmug. I said it’s a bad analogy and I meant it. Denying it changes nothing. Here’s what you said: “That’s as much a strawman as my holding you responsible for the US Supreme court legalizing and upholding abortion—you’re an American, so it’s your fault.” You probably don’t even remember what you were comparing that to. It was my telling you it was incumbent that you defend sola scriptura because you believe in it as doctrine. I don’t support abortion and the Supreme Court decisions upholding a right to abortion are against my beliefs. Sola scripture is not against your beliefs. As I said, you made a BAD analogy. And it’s you who is deflecting the issue, as you do all the issues you cannot defend.

As far as defending my doctrine, I can defend it. What you’re asking me to do is defend the doctrine of others. That fact escapes you.

Now you’re just typing. What fact escapes me? The “doctrine of others” you’re trying to separate yourself from is sola scriptura. Are you losing track of the conversation here? You seem to be arguing against yourself. If you can defend sola scriptura, which, as you know, is not found in Scripture, start any time.

If Scripture is responsible for the varied beliefs in Protestantism, then the magisterium is equally responsible for the varied beliefs in Roman Catholicism; and that fact escapes you as well.

There is nothing in a conversation with you that escapes me. It is you who are oblivious to the facts. There are NO varied beliefs in the Catholic Church. There are Catholics who are heretics. Their heresies are the ‘varied beliefs’ you speak of. Their heresies are not taught by the Church, which, guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches a consistent set of doctrines and dogmas.

Your arguments are inconsistent in that the criticisms you level against SS can be leveled against your magisterium.

Let’s see you do it, then. Start by showing me 40,000 different versions of the truth in the Catholic Church. Or even two. Based, of course, on the lesson I taught you in the paragraph above this one Shrug.

 

[SteveGC]

reason why scripture alone though there are many i’ll take it one step at a time:

yet within the catholic church there are many teachings to which i was involved briefly in discussion on a different thread of the brown scapular.

The scapular is NOT a magic salvation trinket. Jerry, do you actually go past the surface on any of your research? Here’s a hint. Don’t read NON-Catholic literature to learn about Catholic practices. And if you read the Catholic literature, don’t just pick and choose buzz words and phrases (like you do with Scripture) to find “clues” which point to a false gospel.

The scapular is a sacramental. To be “clothed” with the scapular, it is necessary to FIRST be “clothed with Christ” Romans 13:14 and 1 Cor 15:14. Mary’s message is not to just “put this on and you’ll be saved”. Far from it. To clothe oneself with it takes a tremendous ascent of the will toward God, a commitment to walk in His ways, to turn from every temptation. Like many other sacramentals, which are blessed treasures from The Church, it is a constant reminder to us to perservere in the faith, to live up to our calling from God in all ways, every day.

You said,

i have been opposed on this issue when scripture tells that it is God who saves us, He calls us and we will not be lost. that is God’s promise found in the Gospel. my friends with all sincerity and love, why don’t you trust God for your salvation?

Jerry, the only thing Catholics disagree with you on is what I bolded, and that’s just assuming that you meant that you cannot reject God after you once professed Him. We DO believe we cannot be lost if we perservere in the faith. Indeed nothing can pluck us from the hand of God if that is where we desire to remain.

Why do you insist on driving deeper wedges between our differences? Let me, once again, make it clear for you.

God saves us. He calls us. We trust God for our salvation.

Now, please stop saying things which suggest otherwise, inferring we don’t believe it. Now, if you want to live your life with this 100% absolute assurance of your eternal destiny, which will probably not be realized for decades upon decades from now, you go right ahead. We’ve warned you of the danger of that theology, but you go right ahead. But do NOT assume that, because Catholics don’t have this arrogant assurance, that we somehow don’t trust God for our salvation. It’s ALL God, Jerry. It’s ALL Christ Jesus.

But, and I recently said something like this to on your OSAS thread…God is not so naive to presume that your one-time profession of faith is sufficient enough for Him to see that you are fully committed to Him unto death, and that you are fit for the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ’s death and resurrection has created the once non-existent narrow pathway to Heaven. Our profession of faith (and baptism) allows us to see this narrow path, where once we were blind to it. This is NOT salvation. This is the potential for salvation. We must WALK the narrow path now. If we stray from the narrow path too much, and our natural death occurs during that time, we will not attain the promise of salvation. And yes, you can stray…very far…even after your initial profession of faith. Perilous to believe that all is eternally Ok with you when you stray.

God Bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where I have used the word “sufficiency.”

If you have failed to address the formal sufficiency of scripture, then you haved failed to grasp the problem facing the sola scripturist. I, on the other hand, understand the weakness and referenced the problem right up front. I mean, why beat around the bush? Either scripture is formally sufficient to act as the sole rule of faith for the believer or it isn’t. Catholics hold to the material sufficiency of scripture, but not the formal sufficiency. What say you?

I’m allowing the passage to speak by itself.

In which case the debate is over since the passage simply does teach sola scriptura.

Shall I post the definition for “bias?”

If you like. But this would be irrelevant.

C’mon, Randy, you just blow them off—no protestant has won a debate with a Catholic concerning this for 30 years; remember?

Catholics lose debates. Not on substance, mind you, but not every Catholic is equal to the task of public debate.

And since those “proto-magisterial” declarations all false teachings and heresies vanished?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by this. However, it is true that the Catholic Church is protected from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

I’m not here to convince you of SS, but to defend it.

I don’t envy you your task.

From Godfrey:
As early as the seventeenth century the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin noted the serious theological divisions in the Roman church and asked why the pope did not settle these disputes if his office was so effective. Such theological problems are certainly much greater today than in Turretin’s day and the question remains unanswered as to why the pope is so ineffective.

We should not be surprised that there are divisions in the church. Christ and His apostles predicted that there would be. The Apostle Paul told us that such divisions are useful. He wrote: “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Differences should humble us and drive us back to the Scriptures to test all claims to truth. If we do not accept the Scriptures as our standard and judge, there is indeed no hope for unity.

The church must have a standard by which to judge all claims to truth. The church must have a standard of truth by which to reform and purify itself when divisions arise. The church cannot claim that it is that standard and defend that claim by appealing to itself. Such circular reasoning is not only unconvincing; it is self-defeating. Rome’s argument boils down to this: we must believe Rome because Rome says so.

I encourage you to give examples of such divisive theological matters that vex the Catholic Church to the point of the degree of factionalism as has plagued Protestantism almost from the beginning.

Please begin new threads covering one example each. Thanks.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

However, concerning your claim of “circular reasoning”, I encourage you to consider carefully the following:

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

To summarize:

1. The Bible is shown to be an historically accurate text.
2. The historically accurate Bible tells us that Jesus is God and that He promised to establish an infallible Church.
3. The Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus.
4. Therefore, the Catholic Church must be the infallible Church founded by Jesus as described in the Bible.

That’s why we listen to Rome.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s a good analogy, Ferde, which is why you’re deflecting it.

As far as defending my doctrine, I can defend it. What you’re asking me to do is defend the doctrine of others. That fact escapes you.

If Scripture is responsible for the varied beliefs in Protestantism, then the magisterium is equally responsible for the varied beliefs in Roman Catholicism; and that fact escapes you as well.

Your arguments are inconsistent in that the criticisms you level against SS can be leveled against your magisterium.

This is a weak argument as the following response to your charge illustrates:

“You Are Also!”
Adapted from “Disunity on the Essentials” by Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp
Because of the divisions with Protestantism, its advocates typically do not attempt to defend the indefensible. Instead, they commonly resort to a form of tu quoque (Latin, “You are also!”) argument in which they attempt to tar Catholics with similar disunity.

For example, they might say, “Look at the Dominicans and the Jesuits. They typically hold different views of predestination. This shows that Catholics as well as Protestants disagree on essentials, and thus are no more credible than Protestants.”

In response, a number of points may be made: First, Catholicism has a functioning magisterium that can decide that these matters are not essential differences. Second, the relevant schools adhere to the teachings of the magisterium and, if their views were reprobated, would accept the results (or cease to be faithful Catholics). Third, the differences between Catholic schools of thought have nowhere near the magnitude of the difference among Protestant schools. Compared to the differences among Protestant groups, differences among orthodox Catholic groups are trivial. Finally, the fact that the Catholic Church has a magisterium means that there can be—and on the most important theological matters there is—an official Catholic position. There is no parallel standard in Protestant circles that can speak for Protestantism.

Other times, advocates of Protestantism will attempt to construct a parallel argument against Catholics by pointing to the existence of ostensible Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the magisterium’s teachings.

In response, it should be pointed out that the difference among Catholic dissidents is frequently far less than among individuals in the sweep of Protestant belief. Furthermore, individuals’ refusal to accept the magisterium’s teachings does not challenge the Christ-given authority of the magisterium any more than the refusal to accept some of Paul’s teachings undermines Paul’s authority as an apostle. Moreover, Protestant churches also have individuals who refuse to honor the teachings of their denominations. The difference is that for Catholicism there is a body—the bishops teaching in union with the pope—who “speak for the Church” and who can articulate what “the Catholic position” is, while in Protestantism there is nothing comparable.

+++

Now, answer the question: Why has sola scripturaI resulted in thousands of Protestant denominations which teach conflicting and contradictory doctrines?

 

[Randy_Carson]

reason why scripture alone though there are many i’ll take it one step at a time:

we have had different conversations which has prompted me to even start a thread on one topic which is of osas.

i have been opposed on this issue when scripture tells that it is God who saves us, He calls us and we will not be lost. that is God’s promise found in the Gospel. my friends with all sincerity and love, why don’t you trust God for your salvation?

And why do you ignore the Word of God which tells you that you can lose your salvation?

John 3:36
36* He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

You can believe all you want, but if you fail to obey (do what He requires), you will not see life.

You can lose your salvation through disobedience.

 

[baddog]

The Catholic Church allows for different interpretations of Scripture as long as any interpretation doesn’t conflict with Catholic doctrine.
See below:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

 

[Howie01]

Randy Carson:

And why do you ignore the Word of God which tells you that you can lose your salvation?

John 3:36
36* He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

You can believe all you want, but if you fail to obey (do what He requires), you will not see life.

You can lose your salvation through disobedience.

The Greek word translated “does not obey,” is apeitheō. It’s a single word meaning “does not believe [in the Son].” That’s the context of the verse.

 

[Howie01]

The Catholic Church allows for different interpretations of Scripture as long as any interpretation doesn’t conflict with Catholic doctrine.
See below:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

That’s what the Catechism says.

 

[Howie01]

Randy Carson:

If you have failed to address the formal sufficiency of scripture, then you haved failed to grasp the problem facing the sola scripturist. I, on the other hand, understand the weakness and referenced the problem right up front. I mean, why beat around the bush? Either scripture is formally sufficient to act as the sole rule of faith for the believer or it isn’t. Catholics hold to the material sufficiency of scripture, but not the formal sufficiency. What say you?

It doesn’t matter what I say, but what the Scripture says:**2 Timothy 3:14-17

14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17 SO THAT the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.**You’re looking for answers everywhere, other than where you should be looking.
Randy Carson:

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by this. However, it is true that the Catholic Church is protected from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

That’s a self-proclaimed status. The warnings against false prophets are given to the body of Christ, and not to some self-appointed “infallible” teaching body. Note the scripture nowhere follows up on those warnings by telling the body that they need not worry because an “infallible” teaching magisterium and pope have been appointed. But it’s the responsibility of the entire church to know the truth so that it doesn’t fall into error.
Randy Carson:

I encourage you to give examples of such divisive theological matters that vex the Catholic Church to the point of the degree of factionalism as has plagued Protestantism almost from the beginning.

Please begin new threads covering one example each. Thanks.

I’m not interested in arguing this with you. You have varying factions, such as, Sedevacantists, SSPX, traditionalists, cafeterias, right down the differences between individuals in their understanding of RC teachings, and each of those groups claims to be Catholic. There’s no need to go any deeper than that for me.
Randy Carson:

However, concerning your claim of “circular reasoning”, I encourage you to consider carefully the following:

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

**An Accurate Text

The Bible as Historical Truth**

There’s nothing you’ve presented that I don’t know, and that those who have taken the time to be informed don’t know.
Randy Carson:

To summarize:

1. The Bible is shown to be an historically accurate text.
2. The historically accurate Bible tells us that Jesus is God and that He promised to establish an infallible Church.
3. The Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Jesus.
4. Therefore, the Catholic Church must be the infallible Church founded by Jesus as described in the Bible.

That’s your summary of the Catholic position, Randy; thanks for that.

“You Are Also!”

Adapted from “Disunity on the Essentials” by Jimmy Akin

Akin is certainly entitled to present a response to the “you are also,” argument.
Randy Carson:

Now, answer the question: Why has sola scripturaI resulted in thousands of Protestant denominations which teach conflicting and contradictory doctrines?

I’ve already answered that question in an earlier post to Josie L, I think it was—sin, and that people pick and choose what they’ll believe, and what they won’t believe.

 

[Howie01]

Ferde RombolaRandy Carson:

Then why don’t you defend it.

I have been, by using the “you also argument,” which Randy Carson has weighed in on.
Ferde Rombola:

By whose standards is the Pope ineffective? The last time I looked we are still the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Pope’s job is to maintain the unity of the Church by preaching the truth and insisting the truth be preached all over the world by the one true Chuch.

And so are those churches holding to the Reformed position still one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as Godfrey notes in the opening of his article.

I’ll dub the above argument the, We Are Also, argument; thank you, Mr. Akin.
Ferde Rombola:

Precisely. Which approval is revealed by the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church, which is led to the truth by the Holy Spirit. You can’t possibly allege the truth is ever revealed to any protestant sect, which, collectively, have 40,000 versions of ‘the truth.’

But I do allege that Ferde, which you’d know if you’d only pay attention; that’s because I don’t collectivize them, as you do.
Ferde Rombola:

We can agree to those words, but we come to radically different conclusions. Mine are supported by Scripture; yours come from the 500 year old heresies of men.

I find my conclusions supported by Scripture. There’s the impasse.
Ferde Rombola:

Of course, and she does. “Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt. 16:19.

That verse is not the standard of truth, Ferde, but a directive from the standard, that standard being the Scriptures. The church’s authority is not to determine these things, but to declare the judgment of heaven based on the principles of God’s Word. In making such judgments on the basis of God’s Word, the local church can be sure heaven is in accord. In other words, whatever they “bind” or “loose” on earth is already “bound” or “loosed” in heaven. When the church says the unrepentant person is bound in sin, the church is saying what God says about that person. When the church acknowledges that a repentant person has been loosed from that sin, God agrees.

I’m not speaking for all of “Protestantism,” but for Reformed churches only in accord with the instructions of Mt 18:15-17.
Ferde Rombola:

That is a lie.

I disagree.
Ferde Rombola:

Shrug, schmug. I said it’s a bad analogy and I meant it. Denying it changes nothing. Here’s what you said: “That’s as much a strawman as my holding you responsible for the US Supreme court legalizing and upholding abortion—you’re an American, so it’s your fault.” You probably don’t even remember what you were comparing that to.

What I do remember is my analogy wasn’t a response to you, but to inkaneer.
Ferde Rombola:

Now you’re just typing. What fact escapes me? The “doctrine of others” you’re trying to separate yourself from is sola scriptura.

That may be your perception, but I’m not separating myself from SS. I am separating myself from many of the errant teachings of those claiming to be adherents of SS, and I’m not responsible for what they teach; they are; that is the fact that escapes you.
Ferde Rombola:

There are NO varied beliefs in the Catholic Church. There are Catholics who are heretics. Their heresies are the ‘varied beliefs’ you speak of. Their heresies are not taught by the Church, which, guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches a consistent set of doctrines and dogmas.

Here you’re separating yourself from those Catholics you consider to be heretics, but when I separate myself from protestants with errant doctrine, you accuse me of separating myself from SS.

So then, ISTM, you’re separating yourself from an infallible magisterium and pope when you separate yourself from Catholics you deem to be heretics.
Ferde Rombola:

Let’s see you do it, then. Start by showing me 40,000 different versions of the truth in the Catholic Church. Or even two. Based, of course, on the lesson I taught you in the paragraph above this one Shrug.

Based upon “the lesson you taught,” you’re applying one standard to yourself, a Catholic, and another standard to me, a protestant.

 

[Howie01]

centurion210:

In the same context on page 3, Dr. Godfrey has a quote from St. John Chrysostom. His source for the quote is a book by another writer named William Whitaker. This was the point in my other post; why not use the quote from St. John Chrysostom.

Thanks for bringing that up. Here’s a link for anyone who wants to purchase this great work by Whitaker:
by William WhitakerDisputations on Holy Scripture,