Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[Esquire]

Very nice post Robert.

Sometimes when I hear the Fundamentalist/Evangelical company line on sola scriptura (ala the Bible wrong-Answer Man) I want to bang my head against the wall.

What ticks me off about preachers that perpetuate the *sola scriptura * lie to their innocent followers is that when someone makes these clear and unarguable points to them, I’m afraid alot of them will not only lose their faith in *sola scriptura *, but in all of Christianity.

Good for you.

 

[RNRobert]

SPOKENWORD:

RnRobert, You can attack the argument but not very Christlike to attack the character.

Kinsman is the poster child for invincible ignorance.

Perhaps I was a bit too harsh but people like Kinsman really push my buttons. Since I started this thread I’ve debated with two other Protestants (Paradox and Shibboleth). We’ve disagreed but still managed to have a civil debate without name-calling. Kinsman, on the other hand, comes here with this holier-than-thou, “I have the Bible so I know better than you” attitude. He jumps in with unmitigated arrogance, calls me a “Romanist” and accuses me of “trampling on holy ground” and “discrediting all of God’s written Word just to prove their own religious views,” both of which are outright lies.
He displayed the same amount of gall on the ‘Assumption of Mary’ thread and actually drove people away.

 

[BobCatholic]

Shibboleth:

I would like to rename this thread, “How many Bob-s does it take to reeducate a Protestant?”

(BobCatholic WHOMPs you with a pillow playfullly. )

 

[SPOKENWORD]

RNRobert:

Perhaps I was a bit too harsh but people like Kinsman really push my buttons. Since I started this thread I’ve debated with two other Protestants (Paradox and Shibboleth). We’ve disagreed but still managed to have a civil debate without name-calling. Kinsman, on the other hand, comes here with this holier-than-thou, “I have the Bible so I know better than you” attitude. He jumps in with unmitigated arrogance, calls me a “Romanist” and accuses me of “trampling on holy ground” and “discrediting all of God’s written Word just to prove their own religious views,” both of which are outright lies.
He displayed the same amount of gall on the ‘Assumption of Mary’ thread and actually drove people away.

I understand your feelings but its really about you. We need to be Christlike in our actions. We have to be careful what comes out of our mouth for life and death are in the power of the tongue. Let us try to live up to calling ourselves christians.

 

[RNRobert]

SPOKENWORD:

I understand your feelings but its really about you. We need to be Christlike in our actions. We have to be careful what comes out of our mouth for life and death are in the power of the tongue. Let us try to live up to calling ourselves christians.

You are right… i shouldn’t stoop to his level.

 

[Kinsman]

4. People were converting to Christianity through oral word for years before any of the New Testament was given.

This is true, but it has no bearing on one’s argument against the ultimate authority of God’s written Word. The Bible was written for believers, not unbelievers. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 states that Scripture is for *“teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” *None of this pertains to unbelievers. The Bible is a spiritual Book and it’s those who are already saved and regenerated by the Holy Spirit that profit from it. *“Conversion” *of the unbelievers belongs to the oral preaching of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. This hasn’t change since Peter stood up and presented the Gospel (good news) message to his Jewish brethren on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

5. 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.

When studied it becomes obvious that the New Testament contains all that we need to know about “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” It is our divine “handbook.” The Epistles do not only cover local, church issues, but Books such as Romans, Ephesians, Galatians and Hebrews are pregnant with theological truths which clarify and define our salvation through faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. And so well distributed were the Gospels accounts and the Epistles that the early Church writers, after the Apostolic age, quoted from them liberally. From the beginning the Epistles were never viewed as provincial (ex. Col. 2:1; 4:13; Col. 4:15-16), but letters that were to be read by all the churches in and beyond the empire. For this reason they were quickly copied and distributed.

God did not leave us without written explanation of “the faith which was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). And if it is God’s written Word (which it is), then there is no higher authority for the Body of Christ on earth, until the second Advent of Christ Himself.

 

[Kinsman]

6. 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.

Yes, the forming of the N.T. canon certainly had a history. But it is far from the truth that the *“church created the Bible” *(no matter what definition you give for the word “Church”).The Scriptures became the written Word of God the very moment they were penned by the Holy Spirit through their various human authors. It’s not the formalizing of the New Testament canon that “created” them as Holy Writ. The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) simply expressed, or ratified, what had already become the unanimous judgment of the churches (plural) where those writings were already regarded as divinely inspired and authoritative.

You need to understand that “Protestantism” is not against tradition. But when it comes to the “faith once for all delivered to the saints,” all tradition must take a subordinate role to the written Word of God. Christ Himself demonstrated this with His many confrontations with the tradition driven Pharisees.

"And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” (Mark 7:5-9).

Jesus rebuked the Jewish leadership because they deviated from what had already been revealed in God’s Word regarding what was required for obedience and faith. But instead they taught, as doctrine, “the precepts of men.” As a result they worshipped in vain and their hearts were far from Him. It’s only when one’s heart is filled with the Word of God that it can be close to God (Col. 3:16).

And the same vain the Apostle Paul warns the Church:“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col. 2:8).

He warned believers very early on not to be taken captive by “traditions of men.” Afterall, as a Jew and a former Pharisee, he very well understood what spiritual damage can occur by holding on to traditions that do not conform to what God had already revealed in His written Word. Like the Pharisees, though worship is done, it’s done in vain (Jn. 4:23-24). Though Godly words are spoken by the lips, in reality the heart is far from Him. For this reason it is imperative that even traditions be tested by the written Word of God, and those that fail the test must be immediately discarded. This is what the Reformers did in their effort to return to a more Biblically based faith. They weren’t flawless, but it was a huge step in the right direction.

For many years the majority of the Jews followed the broad road paved by the "traditions of the elders." But when Messiah appeared He accepted neither their worship nor their traditions (Matt. 15:7-9). The Church should take heed. You recall what Jesus said to the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22)?

 

[bob]

Kinsman:

The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) simply expressed, or ratified, what had already become the unanimous judgment of the churches (plural) where those writings were already regarded as divinely inspired and authoritative.

The councils of “churches” or dioceses were organised by The Church.
By the time of these councils, they had already accepted the authority of the church in Rome.

The Council of Hippo, a regional council for some of the bishops in the Diocese of Africa, in 393 AD reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus.(Pope St. Damasus I)

Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate

“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:—the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.”
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John.”
Council of Carthage III,Canon 47(A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

If they were unanimous in their decision to accept the divinely inspired writings, why did the Protestants reject some of these divinely inspired books 1000 years later? Is it because they had disagreed with what was wriiten in those rejected books?

 

[RNRobert]

BobCatholic:

For these “Many” I’ll ask them my infamous 4 questions. Then sit back and watch them ATTEMPT (and fail) apply their own standard and sqirm.

What are these infamous 4 questions?

 

[RNRobert]

Kinsman:

2 Tim. 3:16-17 states that Scripture is for "teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Yes, but it does not say that all Scriptures are SUFFICIENT, nor does it say that ONLY Scriptures are profitable.

Kinsman:

When studied it becomes obvious that the New Testament contains all that we need to know about “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” It is our divine “handbook.”

Then why are there so many denominations who claim the Bible as their handbook and yet cannot agree what it teaches?

 

[RNRobert]

Kinsman:

You need to understand that “Protestantism” is not against tradition. But when it comes to the “faith once for all delivered to the saints,” all tradition must take a subordinate role to the written Word of God. Christ Himself demonstrated this with His many confrontations with the tradition driven Pharisees.

Jesus rebuked the Jewish leadership because they deviated from what had already been revealed in God’s Word regarding what was required for obedience and faith. But instead they taught, as doctrine, “the precepts of men.” As a result they worshipped in vain and their hearts were far from Him. It’s only when one’s heart is filled with the Word of God that it can be close to God (Col. 3:16).

He warned believers very early on not to be taken captive by “traditions of men.” Afterall, as a Jew and a former Pharisee, he very well understood what spiritual damage can occur by holding on to traditions that do not conform to what God had already revealed in His written Word. Like the Pharisees, though worship is done, it’s done in vain (Jn. 4:23-24). Though Godly words are spoken by the lips, in reality the heart is far from Him. For this reason it is imperative that even traditions be tested by the written Word of God, and those that fail the test must be immediately discarded. This is what the Reformers did in their effort to return to a more Biblically based faith. They weren’t flawless, but it was a huge step in the right direction.

If the Bible is our handbook with all we need to know, why can’t the Protestant churches teach the same thing, since they allegedly follow the Bible. Also, which of the Protestant “traditions” should I accept, ie. Baptist,Congregational, Church of God, Church of Christ, Church of God in Christ, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Nazarene, Unitarian, etc.,etc. It seems Protestants only accept tradition when it suits THEM.
Reformers were not only not flawless, but it was a huge step in the WRONG direction. The Catholic Church needed reform at that time, but in morals, not dogma. Instead, the Protestants shattered the Christian Church, the effects of which reverberate down to this day. Many Protestant churches these these days don’t even believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or the claims of Jesus!

Kinsman:

For many years the majority of the Jews followed the broad road paved by the "traditions of the elders." But when Messiah appeared He accepted neither their worship nor their traditions (Matt. 15:7-9).

You fail to distinguish between the ‘traditions of men’ and Sacred Tradition (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Kinsman:

The Church should take heed. You recall what Jesus said to the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22)?

What in Sam Hill has that passage got to do with traditions? Since you’re so found of hurling Scripture, I have one for you:
John 17:21: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me.
Protest-antism, with it’s ever increasing number of contradicting sects, is slap in the face of Jesus Christ and makes a mockery of his prayer.

 

[Kinsman]

bob:

If they were unanimous in their decision to accept the divinely inspired writings, why did the Protestants reject some of these divinely inspired books 1000 years later? Is it because they had disagreed with what was wriiten in those rejected books?

My point was, the councils didn’t MAKE these writings Scripture, i.e., the written Word of God. Churches throughout the empire already recognized the twenty-seven Books of the N.T. as divinely inspired. If there had been no councils it wouldn’t have changed anything. No council MADE these writings the written Word of God.

Protestantism retained the N.T. canon of the Roman church, but, in accordance with the orthodox Jewish and the primitive Christian view, excluded the Apocrypha from the O.T. In my opinion they were correct to do so. It is/was obvious to many they’re not divinely inspired.

Neither Rome nor Prostestanism, nor any human organization MAKES the Scriptures divine. No more than my social security number makes me a human being. I am human because I was created that way…the Bible is the written Word of God because it was created (at the time each Book was penned) that way. Men have nothing to do with it, except those who were chosen to write. And the FACT that is IS the written Word of God it has the authority of God and every Christian doctrine, tradition, council, priest, pope, and pastor must be tested by it. The fact that you give up this right doesn’t change it.

The Sadducees (high religious leaders of authority) didn’t believe in the resurrection. But did that change the truth regarding this Biblically revealed fact? Jesus said to them:

MAT 22:29 “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.”

Jesus (God Himself) appealed to the Scriptures for His authority. Men, especially those in high religious orders, can’t change what God has written. Nor does God, it would be against His nature, He doesn’t change. If you want to know what God has revealed regarding the true Christian faith, study the N.T. Scriptures. Don’t be afraid.

 

[RNRobert]

Kinsman:

Protestantism retained the N.T. canon of the Roman church, but, in accordance with the orthodox Jewish and the primitive Christian view, excluded the Apocrypha from the O.T. In my opinion they were correct to do so. It is/was obvious to many they’re not divinely inspired.

Oh, and what do you think makes NT books like Philemon and 3 John so divinely inspired? BTW, let me read you a passage from one of the Deuterocanonical books:

**“Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes himself to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.” These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward. **Wisdom 2:12-21
When I first read this passage (two years before becoming Catholic) I was blown away! To me this passage seemed to echo the reaction of the Jewish leaders to the Messiah. Being as this book was written a century or a two before the birth of Christ, I felt it had to be a prophesy!

As for the Orthodox Jewish view, the Jews didn’t formalize their canon until the Council of Jamnia aat around AD 100, and they threw out the deuterocanonical books because they were in the Septuagint, which was used by the primitive Christians. The two most ancient Christian Churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox, both hold the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired. It wasn’t until the Reformation that any Christians believed differently (and Martin Luther even downgraded certain books of the NT like Hebrews, James and Revelation, since they didn’t square with his teachings).

 

[RNRobert]

kinsman:

Neither Rome nor Prostestanism, nor any human organization MAKES the Scriptures divine. And the FACT that is IS the written Word of God it has the authority of God and every Christian doctrine, tradition, council, priest, pope, and pastor must be tested by it. The fact that you give up this right doesn’t change it.

I did not give up anything except the confusion of conflicted Bible teachings offered by Protestantism. And I defy you to prove any Catholic teaching that is contray to the Bible.

kinsman:

If you want to know what God has revealed regarding the true Christian faith, study the N.T. Scriptures. Don’t be afraid.

I’m not afraid. I did study the NT Scriptures. And it lead me right out of the division and confusion of Protest-antism into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

 

[BobCatholic]

Kinsman:

MAT 22:29 “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.”

Jesus (God Himself) appealed to the Scriptures for His authority. Men, especially those in high religious orders, can’t change what God has written.

No, Christ appealed to His interpretation of the Scriptures, IN ADDITION TO the scriptures. He interpreted them to mean that the resurrection is possible because HE is God and He knows what was written there and what was meant there. Look at the following verses after Matthew 22:29 and you’ll see Him Interpreting the verses:

Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

as meaning that it supports the Resurrection (despite the original scripture He is quoting saying NOTHING about it!)

Face it, Sola Scripturists are playing the Sadducees role! They interpreted the Scriptures apart from God’s interpretation of Scripture and missing the point!

If you take a look in the NT, you’ll see:

• Christ interpreting the scriptures for the disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke 24)
• Christ interpreting the Scriptures about “The Lord said to My Lord…” Part in Psalm 110. (Matthew 22:44 and on)
  just for starters.

His Interpretation of Scripture is JUST AS AUTHORITATIVE as the Scriptures He was interpreting.

And somehow, according to Sola Scripturists, the Scriptures were passed down through God fearing men, translated, distributed, copied, blood shed for - all done just to make sure you could get the Bible in your hands, but SOMEHOW the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture was lost using the same method.

Odd.

 

[Kinsman]

RNRobert:

You fail to distinguish between the ‘traditions of men’ and Sacred Tradition (see 2 Thessalonians 2:15)

No, what I fail to do is call Rome’s extrabiblical traditions as “sacred.” Traditions Rome now presents as “doctrine” and “articles of faith” which cannot be proved to go back to the actual teachings of any of the Apostles.

2 Thess. 2:15 is in the context of Paul correcting the false idea that “the day of the Lord has come” (vs. 2). He confirms to them that this error did not originate with them, and then goes on to explain why that day could not have arrived. And then in verse five he asks them, “do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?” This is what Paul meant by “the traditions which you were taught.” They included both what he taught them orally while with them, and what he followed up in letter form: “whether by word or by letter from us.”

This verse in no way teaches nor sanctions extrabiblical, post Apostolic so-called “traditions,” such as the Marian doctrines. 2 Thess. 2:15 is in the context of what Paul and his companions taught by word of mouth while he was with them. You and I, or anyone for that matter, who was not actually there have no personal knowledge as to what Paul told or taught them orally when in their presence. In fact, what he had taught them previously regarding the issue at hand, they’d already forgotten!!! (2:5). And they needed to be reminded by letter. Which is typical of the human mind, and essentially why God made sure subsequent generations of believers whould have certain and definite knowledge of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” by putting it in inspired (theopneustos, God-breathed) writings.

 

[Kinsman]

RNRobert:

If the Bible is our handbook with all we need to know, why can’t the Protestant churches teach the same thing, since they allegedly follow the Bible…which of the Protestant “traditions” should I accept

Don’t accept any Protestant “traditions” unless they conform to God’s written Word. That would mean you’d have to take time out of your life and dedicate it to the study of it, rather than just always be told what to believe. Actually, when it comes to the essentials of a Biblical faith many mainline denominations (not all) are in total agreement. I have taught Biblical and theological studies for years in homes and various church assemblies, consisting of mixed groups (denominational & non-). We had great studies together and encouraging fellowship in Christ; our common denominator being salvation (justification) by grace through faith in Christ alone. We could study the Bible together because that’s the basic premise of the N.T. writings. Once you have the foundation right, building upon it is smooth going. If you start with a flawed foundation you struggle all the way.

Many Protestant churches these these days don’t even believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or the claims of Jesus!

You’ve got that right. I’m not pushing “Protestantism” here, nor any particular Protestant church. I consider faith personal, not ecclesiastical. That’s the way it’s described in the Bible. If you’re a true believer you’ll stand before the judgment seat of Christ, but you’ll do it alone. Pope so-and-so is not going to hold your hand. If you’re an unbeliever you’ll stand before the White Throne Judgment alone, but you’re already doomed anyway. According to God’s written Word the Church (the Body of Christ, God’s household) is made up of all true believers down through the successive generations since Pentecost, being built (to this very day) upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets (Eph. 2:19-22). I’m a Biblicist - I’m not a Protestant. My defense is based on Scripture, not any peculiar teachings of any particular denomination. If I have a crusade it’s to help get believers back in line with a true Biblical faith. But let’s be fair about this, Romanism is not immune to liberal beliefs either. I’ve spoken to many priests and even a Bishop who struggles with the basic idea of the existence of God, never mind the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. They simply take their priesthood as a “vocation.” No room to point fingers, calling kettles black, or throwing stones here, my friend!

 

[Joanna]

Curious:

Hrm…as a sola scriptura person myself I’ve got to admit…you’ve made some good points.

You are a breath of fresh air!

I have a friend who generally speaks little while debates and discussions rage. She just listens long and hard, though she knows a great deal. Her reason, she explained, is that when she speaks she just brings forth what she already knows and she’d rather be learning.

 

[Joanna]

RNRobert:

Not at all! Hope it helps you.

It’s a keeper in my book, too. Thanks for the great effort.

 

[Joanna]

Kinsman:

I consider faith personal, not ecclesiastical. That’s the way it’s described in the Bible. If you’re a true believer you’ll stand before the judgment seat of Christ, but you’ll do it alone. Pope so-and-so is not going to hold your hand. If you’re an unbeliever you’ll stand before the White Throne Judgment alone, but you’re already doomed anyway. According to God’s written Word the Church (the Body of Christ, God’s household) is made up of all true believers down through the successive generations since Pentecost, being built (to this very day) upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets (Eph. 2:19-22).