Sola Scriptura?

[TristanCross]

How can sola scriptura not be true? Please, look at this link. I’d appreciate if someone could refute it so I may have no doubt in Sacred Tradition

carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth

 

[distracted]

have you ever read the New Testament? I mean, really read ALL of it…

No, i’m not being a smart a–.

I read it when very young and yet i somehow missed out on all the “hard stuff” and i see in hindsight that i missed out because at that time, i was young (etc) & i only wanted to focus on the miracles Jesus did, etc… the happy-making stuff.

anyway, the Bible itself never says that the Bible is our sole rule of faith. sola scriptura is self-refuting…

one psg says that if all that Jesus said & did were put into books, the whole world could likely not contain it.

Logic dictates that all God could possibly want for us to know about Christ and His message cannot be contained in a relatively small book.

For one thing, this book did not exist as we know it today until the 15th century (printing press invented 1440, although a primitive version may have existed somewhat earlier). What did people do before then? They had the Church. The Church had the New Testament - And probably not all Churches did until way late in the game ( written copies). Can you imagine writing out the entire Bible without the helps we have today? So only the pope and bishops had written copies back in the old days and if you go back to the very beginning, even that probalby wasn’t the case.

Jesus (if you go only by the Bible) never said to write anything down. He said to preach and to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and HS. This is how the Word was spread before the written Bible came along.

Also there are “tricky” issues that come up and the Bible does not address them specifically, explicitly…

God wanted us to have a Church (infallible, indestructable) so that we would know where He stands on such issues as artificial birht control (which i am sure he knew would make an appearance at some point), in-vitro fertilization, stem cell research, cloning etc…

God does not want us to be ignorant … He wants us to know Him.

i could say other things but… later…

 

[Filioque]

The article linked in the OP was wonderfully written. In saying that I don’t mean to imply that it was correct, but rather that the writer, using all the usual deceptive devices that Anti-Catholics have used since the inception of Protestantism to dismantle what the Apostles handed down, as they ignore authentic history, and Biblical Interpretations that existed from the Early Church until the Reformation.

The article blurrs reality, and distorts the truth. You will note in the beginning the author mentions veneration of Mary. Catholics will have nothing against this phrase, because a Catholic with a minimum of education about the Faith knows that only God is Worshipped, and that Mary and the Saints are venerated, or honored for their heroic lives of Faith. A few paragraphs later comes the false charge of “Maryworship” quite different from both what the Catholic Church teaches, and a manner of polluting the mind of the reader against the real Catholic teachings about Mary and the Saints. Being prejudiced by lies like these, one is psychologically biased against hearing what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

No Catholic worth their Faith would believe that the Bible was less than Sacred Tradition, yet another falshood. The author tell us that we are to accept Scripture as the Final Authority, because nowhere does scripture tell us that Tradition is the or a Final Authority. Overlooking the fact that Scripture does not state it is itself the Final Authority, but that it is profitable, or useful. St. Paul himself tells us that we should hold fast to those traditions he gave us either by word or letter, (Oral or Written).

The main point I would fault the article on is defining Tradition. Not the usual Catholic argument that there are Traditions with a capital T, ie those things passed on from the Apostles that are doctrinal, and lower case t, those disciplines that the Church readily admits are practices and laws that can be changed by the Church because they are admittedly man made. But that the every word Tradition, comes from the latin word, Traditio, or to hand on, or pass on. As St. Paul tells us, those things Traditio, or handed on can be handed on Orally or in Writing. The irony is that those who accept only Scripture as the Final Authority, overlook those things in Scripture which deny the teachings they have developed when they rejected the foundations of the Church laid by Jesus himself.

 

[FCEGM]

Tristan, as I go to prepare dinner, I leave you with these words of St. Anselm and a few thoughts of my own:

“I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand: for this I also believe, that unless I believe I will not understand.”

A step in faith (the ASSENT of Faith) is what the Lord asks, and not an ability to cross every ‘t’ or dot ever ‘i’ through our own human reasoning. That’s not to say that He doesn’t want us to employ our human reasoning, but a simple trust in what He teaches through His Church often accomplishes a deeper understanding than all our struggle to understand according to our particular limitations.

God bless you in your pilgrimage and bring you safely home.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

From the article you posted:

1. “The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority”

Really because in Acts 15 when they decided that circumcision was not needed for Gentiles they sure didn’t use Scripture as the final rule of authority. The gospels weren’t written yet. Scripture would have told them:

“On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.” - Leviticus 12:3
“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” - Genesis 17:10

But we know that they did not force the gentiles to be circumcised so it looks like they chose not to use Sola Scriptura.

As far as I’m concerned if the apostles didn’t use it, and it wasn’t popularized until Martin Luther… it’s probably a man made invention.

 

[mark_a]

so I may have no doubt in Sacred Tradition

No doubt??? No questions??? Ever??? At all???

Good luck with that, pal.

After following your story for a while, it seems like your real doubts are with SS.

 

[Joyful_1]

The Bible does not say “Do not use tradition” or “Scripture alone is sufficient.” But the Bible does not say “The Trinity is three persons in one God,” either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

This is very interesting because he uses the arguement against himself. The doctrine of the Trinity is not fully illuminated in the Bible, yet it’s a foundational doctrine of the Church. Most Christians believe it in spite of Sola Scriptura.

2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel…

Scripture is** inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. That’s why the Catholic Church uses it for that. However, you can’t separate the gift from the giver. The Catholic Church infallibly defined which books belong in the Bible. If the Protestants can accept that little spurt of infallibility, they have no basis for disputing Her infallibility in other points as well.

As to the bolded part: What traditions does the author of this article think we should pay attention to if not the traditions of the Catholic Church?

1. The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take the temptation of Christ …as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus’ temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?

This doesn’t prove that Tradition is not useful. It just proves that Scripture is - a fact that Catholics do not dispute.

The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.” Paul commends those who examined God’s word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.

**Also proves only the usefulness and not the sufficiency of Scripture. **

To the words in orange: That is a false statement. Read 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6. There are more.

To the words in dark red: There is a wide distiction between the traditions of men and the Traditions of the Church.

1. In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition – for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7). You see, if the Bible said do not trust Sacred Tradition, then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority and by that position, are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.

Lol. I don’t need the Bible to say something explicitly for it to be true. I’m Catholic so I trust both Tradition and the Bible equally. It would be nice if the Bible said, “Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equal in authority.” It doesn’t mean that I believe in any less than I do now. It would just be more evidence to support my position.

If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God’s word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. … Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?

(This is the last quote for this post, I promise.)

Dark red words: Again I don’t need the Bible to say they are the same for me to believe it to be true. Saying that the Bible is the sole rule of faith does not make it so.

**About the Mormon comment: The Mormons do not use the Bible or Sacred Tradition to make sure that their doctrines are true. They believe the private revelation without any testing and making sure it lines up. **

I don’t know if I’ll have time to respond to the rest of the article in detail here, but I’m having fun. I think you’ll get some good replies, Tristancross.

 

[judechild]

To comment on the article saying that Jesus saw the Scriptures as sufficient: why did He not, then ever mention the canon of Scripture. The Saddusees accepted only the first five books of the Bible, but Jesus never says to them “woe to you, who only have five books.” The Pharisees had a canon identical to the Protestant OT canon, and the Alexandian Jews had one identical to the Catholic one; but Jesus never says anything about it, He simply goes with what they have.

In addition, I’d expect the Ultimate Revelation - Jesus - to write the Bible, if that was supposed to be the sole rule of faith. Of course, God wrote it, but it would seem much more appropriate for Jesus to write the New Testament, if that was to be the only reliable source we were to have.

 

[jchomistek]

Here is my take:
The Bible is not a collection of quotes. The Bible is a story with several story lines:

1. Jesus came to Earth as both God and Man
2. Jesus recruiting and training Apostles and deciples to continue his Church
3. The institution of the Church and Sacraments

Here is where Sola Scriptura hits snags. You can find quotes in the Bible and I can find quotes in the Bible. Who’s quote is better? Who’s interpretation is correct, better. Without the wisdom of Church that Jesus brought to us (above) there can only be guesses and oppinions pertaining what the Bible says and means. Sola Scriptura comes down to this - your word against mine.

Join the Catholic Church and find the real Bible.

 

[Love_is_Patient]

From the article you posted:

1. “The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority”

Really because in Acts 15 when they decided that circumcision was not needed for Gentiles they sure didn’t use Scripture as the final rule of authority. The gospels weren’t written yet. Scripture would have told them:

“On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.” - Leviticus 12:3
“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” - Genesis 17:10

But we know that they did not force the gentiles to be circumcised so it looks like they chose not to use Sola Scriptura.

As far as I’m concerned if the apostles didn’t use it, and it wasn’t popularized until Martin Luther… it’s probably a man made invention.

THANK YOU! This is such a great example, but I never realized it before. I’m definitely going to bring this one up next time I get questioned.

Love is Patient

 

[Love_is_Patient]

To comment on the article saying that Jesus saw the Scriptures as sufficient: why did He not, then ever mention the canon of Scripture. The Saddusees accepted only the first five books of the Bible, but Jesus never says to them “woe to you, who only have five books.” The Pharisees had a canon identical to the Protestant OT canon, and the Alexandian Jews had one identical to the Catholic one; but Jesus never says anything about it, He simply goes with what they have.

In addition, I’d expect the Ultimate Revelation - Jesus - to write the Bible, if that was supposed to be the sole rule of faith. Of course, God wrote it, but it would seem much more appropriate for Jesus to write the New Testament, if that was to be the only reliable source we were to have.

Oooh, good point about the Sadducees!

Love is Patient

 

[bpbasilphx]

Nowhere does the Bible itself teach “sola scriptura.”

In fact, the Bible itself teaching against it.

Even the OT says such things as this:

2 Chronicles 15:3
Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.

Deuteronomy 32:7
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

Does this mean, “Look it up in the Bible for yourself?”

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Did Jesus say, “If he neglect to read the Bible?”

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Did St. paul say that the Bible was the pillar and ground of the truth?

Consider these passages as well:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Note that St. Paul says there are some things in Christian teaching that are just not written down.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

[The KJV uses the word “ordinances”, but this is dishonest, as it’s the same word elsewhere translated “tradition”, as the NKJV does here.]

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

In other words, St. Paul clearly says that there is a “tradition according to Christ.”

2 John 1:12
Having many things to write to you, I did not wish to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

3 John 1:13
I had many things to write, but I do not wish to write to you with pen and ink;

Did you see that St. John himself said that he’s not writing down all his teachings.

And don’t forget, the Church was functioning in all her fullness at the end of Acts 2, without ONE WORD of the NT having been written.

Luther himself did not believe in sola scriptura. He simply dismissed any part of the Bible that disagreed with him as being “uncanonical,” and once said, “If your papist friend insists otherwise, simply tell him that Dr. Luther will have it so.”

In other words, neither the pope nor the Bible is infallible. Only HE is.

Think about it.