Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

  • Thread starter Thread starter RNRobert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RNRobert

Guest
Since joining this forum a couple weeks ago, I’ve noticed that when non-Catholics criticize a Catholic doctrine, they do so by saying “It’s not in the Bible.” Catholic members try to explain the importance of Sacred Tradition, but to no avail. So, I’ve decided to start this thread explaining why I in my quest for authentic Christian truth rejected Sola Scriptura and embraced the Catholic Faith.


  1. *]Jesus did not hand the New Testament to his followers and say “read and heed.” He never wrote a line of scripture, and with the exception of Revelation, never commanded anyone else to do so either.
    *]When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, He did not drop New Testaments on to their laps, but gave them the authority to preach and teach.
    *]When the early church leaders had a debate about Gentiles entering the Church (Acts 11), they could not use the scriptures to decide the issue as the Old Testament didn’t apply and the New Testament didn’t exist. Instead, they met and discussed the issue, with the church leaders making a statement as to what should be done.
    *]People were converting to Christianity through oral word for years before any of the New Testament was given.
    *]When the New Testament began to be written, it was addressed to people who had already been taught the faith through oral preaching, and (mainly in the case of the various epistles) it’s purpose was to clarify issues or correct problems, not be an exhaustive primer of the faith. Also, keep in mind that the books were written to a specific church or individual, and as a consequence, an epistle that might be widely read in one region might be completely unknown to another.

    Continued next post
 
Part 2


  1. *]Even after the books that we now know as the New Testament were written, there was no attempt to set down what the “New Testament” composed of until the middle of the second century AD. Even then, there was a lot of disagreement as to what constituted the New Testament canon. Some books like Jude 3 John, and Revelation were at one point disputed, while some of the patristic writings like those by Clement and Ignatius were included. The New Testament as we know it was not formalized until the end of the 4th century AD. S, it was the church that created the Bible, not the other way around.
    *]Until the advent of the printing press, the necessity of writing everything by hand and the expense of writing materials (like parchment) made books too expensive for the average citizen. The concept of modern organizations (like for instance the Gideons) passing out pocket New Testaments by the truckload would have been fantastic to ancient Christians.
    *]Furthermore, many people in ancient times were illiterate, so the only way for them to hear the Gospel was to go to church and hear it preached. BTW, while I’m at it, I’d like to explode the Protestant myth that “the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin so ordinary people couldn’t read it.” As I said, the ordinary people were largely illiterate to begin with. Secondly, schools of the Middle Ages (and for a few centuries thereafter) taught Latin as part of their curriculum, so anyone who could read could read Latin. Also, numerous vernacular translations of the Bible were in existence long before Luther & Co. came along.
    *]Nowhere in the Bible is it written “The Bible, and the Bible alone, shalt thou take as thy sole rule of faith.” Instead, we are told that it is the Church which is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). St Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15). How do we know for sure all what Paul taught by word of mouth? For that matter, how do know that the Pauline epistles included in the New Testament are the ONLY ones he wrote?
    *]The Apostle John tells us twice in his Gospel (20:30, 21:25) that not all the things that Jesus said and did were written down. Were those words and deeds any less important because they weren’t? Keep in mind this was primarily an *oral *culture.
    *]In Acts 8, when Philip asks the Ethiopian eunuch if he understands the passage in Isaiah he is reading, the Ethiopian responds, “How can, I, unless someone guides me?” (vv 27-31). In other words, whose interpretation do you trust? The practice of using Scripture Alone has shattered Christianity into over 30,000 different denominations (a number which shows no sign of decreasing), all of whom claim to follow the Bible, all who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, but all giving different interpretations! One sect claims baptism is necessary for salvation, another says it isn’t; one denomination says baptism provides grace, another says it’s merely a symbol, one believes in baptizing babies but another one says it’s nonsense. One sect believes in the Trinity, another does not. One sect says Jesus was God and man, but another says he was only a man, a third says something else. How is the earnest inquirer of Christian truth able to sort the wheat from the chaff?

    Concluded next post…
 
Great post. I’ve read the Bible from cover to cover, and have yet to find the verse that says scripture alone should be the authority and guide for a Church.
 
Hrm…as a sola scriptura person myself I’ve got to admit…you’ve made some good points. :hmmm:
 
40.png
RNRobert:
So, I’ve decided to start this thread explaining why I in my quest for authentic Christian truth rejected Sola Scriptura and embraced the Catholic Faith.
Click to expand...
how do you define sola scriptura?

ken
 
Isn’t it true that at least 20 out of 27 N.T. canon writings were acknowledged around the 200’s A.D. without any Church pronouncement? How can that be?
 
The Muratorian Canon had 22 out of 27 books of the N.T.in the 200’s A.D.Now my question is, how did that list come about without any Church pronouncement which did not come till about 382 A.D. and 393 A.D.?
 
Conclusion
St Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:20 that “no prophesy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” St Peter also says in the same epistle (3:16) that “there are some things in them (St Paul’s epistles) hard to understand, which the unlearned and ignorant and unstable twist to their own instruction, as they do the other scriptures.” The tragedies of Jonestown and Waco, Texas provide stark testimonies to the dangers of private interpretation. The writers of the New Testament warn their readers constantly to avoid false teachers, but how one to determine what is is false and what is true unless there is a set standard to apply to. It cannot be Scripture Alone since Protestants who hold to it cannot agree on what the Bible teaches.
13. Many churches who scream loudest about Catholic doctrine as being the ‘traditions of men’ have no hesitation to impose their own ‘traditions’ that have little or no basis in scripture: i.e., no drinking (I’d hate to be a Baptist at Cana), no smoking, no cards, no caffeine, no movies, no TVs, restrictions on clothing (i.e. no short sleeve shirts for men, no slacks for women), following the Jewish dietary laws (Jesus said it was what came out of a man, not what went in, that defiled him), etc…

When I first believed in Jesus Christ, I felt in my heart of hearts that the Church He founded must still be around. I read some literature by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, who claimed to be the ‘true church,’ but their interpretations of Scripture seemed too bizarre. As for ‘mainline’ Protestant churches, many of them seemed to deny the very Scripture they purported to be following. I joined a Southern Baptist church as it was Bible-believing, but witnessed the splintering of the church after the minister left to start a new church and took half of the congregation with him. Where was the oneness in belief that Jesus had prayed for? I had a friend of mine who had invited me to join the Catholic Church some time earlier. He explained about the RCIA program that could answer my questions. I refused at first, figuring I had the Bible and ‘knew’ better. I relented at last, and with some reading on my own, realized that the Catholic Church was the one Jesus founded, that the Catholic Church nurtured and preserved the Bible, and that she alone preserves the Truths of Scripture, particularly since so many Protestant church seem to be denying those truths.
 
40.png
SCTA-1:
The Muratorian Canon had 22 out of 27 books of the N.T.in the 200’s A.D.Now my question is, how did that list come about without any Church pronouncement which did not come till about 382 A.D. and 393 A.D.?
Click to expand...
As I said in my post, attempts at formalizing the canon started in the 2nd century AD (I believe it was prompted by a man named Marcion who had some heretical teachings, and mutilated the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s epistles- the only ones he considered valid- to support his teaching).
The Church didn’t wake up one fine day at the end of the 4th century and decide “Oh, these and these books will be the New Testament.” It was something that was developed over a couple centuries. And, as you pointed out, the Muratorian fragment didn’t contain ALL of the New Testament.
 
40.png
SCTA-1:
The Muratorian Canon had 22 out of 27 books of the N.T.in the 200’s A.D.Now my question is, how did that list come about without any Church pronouncement which did not come till about 382 A.D. and 393 A.D.?
Click to expand...
Simple. Who wrote the Muratorian Canon? The Church. Just because it had not yet been declared by an ecumenical council did not mean that the early Christians were running around, each with their own Bible in hand. The very source you cite is an example of authoritative Church teaching being pronounced by bishops.
 
Sweet, I am going to see if I can give a copy of this to my protestant friend and see if it gets him thinking.
 
40.png
RNRobert:
I define it as “Scripture Alone.”
Click to expand...
actually your third post about being southern baptist answered my question.

thanks,

ken
 
I also believe that it’s important to remember the road to Emmaus (end of Gospel of St. Luke) where Jesus taught us how the events and people of the OT foreshadowed His fulfillment of the Old Covenant and establishment of the New. It is where the apostolic tradition of the Magisterium interpreting Scripture came from… (not to mention His (The Lamb of Revelation) opening the seals of the scroll.)

Do you mind if I copy this and share it with friends and relatives at appropriate times? It is a great, and concise rendering of the issue.

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX
 
Robin L. in TX:
Do you mind if I copy this and share it with friends and relatives at appropriate times? It is a great, and concise rendering of the issue.

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX
Click to expand...
Not at all! 🙂 Hope it helps you.
 
40.png
RNRobert:
I define it as “Scripture Alone.”
Click to expand...
How do you think your points would resonate with a more classical protestant interpretation of sola scriptura instead of the comparatively more austere interpretation made popular within fundamentalism?

ken
 
I do not know where anyone got the idea that sola scriptura means that nothing outside of the scriptures is accepted. There are many things that a person can learn from.

“Preach the Gospel always and when necessary use words.”

A good Protestant should always watch and learn from others. A true genius can discover the secrets of flight not only in bird’s success at staying aloft but also in the failure of stones to fly. All that sola scriptura means is that as the inerrant teachings of Christ all things should be measured against it and nothing is at par or supercedes it - that they are enough within themselves that one need not have other writings – but you should not ignore other writings also if they are available. There are many things outside of the scripture that we recognize as important works that should be heeded and studied.

That is why some of the books that the Catholic Church uses are not considered scriptural by Lutherans. They contradict what we consider to be scripture. Some Catholics say that we threw them out, this is not true. The Lutheran Church believes that these books are very important and should be read and studied, but when they contradict scripture they are in the wrong. Now don’t go arguing that the books do not contradict the others or that how do you know which scriptures are correct. That is for another thread, I am just clarifying the things that are misunderstood by Catholics.

So should a Protestant listen when a theologian speaks even a Catholic – heck yah.

Should you study the Church Fathers and what they said – absolutely

If someone reads the book of Matthew out loud is it any less scripture coming through your ears than through your eyes – nope.

Can God be found outside of the Bible – yes sir.

Can someone find God and follow the teachings of Jesus without a Bible and just through the oral help of others – you bet.

Can truth be witnessed without opening a Bible – of course.

Is the Bible ever wrong - no way jose.

Are people ever wrong - even last one of us on a daily basis.

All that sola scriptura means is that if you are on a desert island and all that you have is a Bible then you are doing O.K. because with careful study, heavy praying, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit you have enough.

Knowing this read through the arguments above and see what contradicts now.
 
II Paradox II:
How do you think your points would resonate with a more classical protestant interpretation of sola scriptura instead of the comparatively more austere interpretation made popular within fundamentalism?

ken
Click to expand...
I must confess, I don’t claim to know everything about Protestant theology (or Catholic theology, for that matter, I’m just a layman). However 30,000 denominations (and counting) CANNOT be what our Lord intended for his church.
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
I do not know where anyone got the idea that sola scriptura means that nothing outside of the scriptures is accepted. There are many things that a person can learn from.

“Preach the Gospel always and when necessary use words.”

A good Protestant should always watch and learn from others. A true genius can discover the secrets of flight not only in bird’s success at staying aloft but also in the failure of stones to fly. All that sola scriptura means is that as the inerrant teachings of Christ all things should be measured against it and nothing is at par or supercedes it - that they are enough within themselves that one need not have other writings – but you should not ignore other writings also if they are available. There are many things outside of the scripture that we recognize as important works that should be heeded and studied.

That is why some of the books that the Catholic Church uses are not considered scriptural by Lutherans. They contradict what we consider to be scripture. Some Catholics say that we threw them out, this is not true. The Lutheran Church believes that these books are very important and should be read and studied, but when they contradict scripture they are in the wrong. Now don’t go arguing that the books do not contradict the others or that how do you know which scriptures are correct. That is for another thread, I am just clarifying the things that are misunderstood by Catholics.

So should a Protestant listen when a theologian speaks even a Catholic – heck yah.

Should you study the Church Fathers and what they said – absolutely

If someone reads the book of Matthew out loud is it any less scripture coming through your ears than through your eyes – nope.

Can God be found outside of the Bible – yes sir.

Can someone find God and follow the teachings of Jesus without a Bible and just through the oral help of others – you bet.

Can truth be witnessed without opening a Bible – of course.

Is the Bible ever wrong - no way jose.

Are people ever wrong - even last one of us on a daily basis.

All that sola scriptura means is that if you are on a desert island and all that you have is a Bible then you are doing O.K. because with careful study, heavy praying, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit you have enough.

Knowing this read through the arguments above and see what contradicts now.
Click to expand...
I agree that someone on a desert island with the Bible alone guided by the Holy Spirit will find his way to God. However, the vast majority of Christians aren’t on a desert island. We are expected to join with other believers in praising the Lord. However, with 30,000+ denominations, all who claim to follow Scripture (but who can’t agree on what Scripture teachs) that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

As to the Deuterocanonical books, how do they contradict the rest of scripture? Please explain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top