Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[Joanna]

Kinsman:

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.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!

Do you mean in this referrence to faith being personal “faith” as the theological virtue or “faith” meaning your personal set of beliefs?

You also mention “all believers since Pentecost” and it seems to me that Pentecost and the upper room actually point to the communal rather than personal aspect of faith or the Faith. There were 120 (the12x10* the number of completeness=church)* with Mary, the mother of Jesus, including the women of course and family members and they all shared one empowering experience.

 

[James1234]

Kinsman has a good heart but without the Catholic Traditions where would the Protestants be. They wouldn’t have anything to criticize.

Kinsman has to understand that the Bible is a very complex book that can be interpreted in many ways. Why do you think we have so many denominations (about 30,000) in the U.S. only. In the end the Catholics have the truth. Protestants don’t like to hear that but it is the truth, end of story.

Harold Camping has his own radio show and had a book out titled “1994” In his book he talks about scripture pointing to the fact that world will end in September 1994. Camping said it may or may happen, he is not saying that is the date. Yet he titles his book “1994”. So you have this one man who started a crusade and religion of his belief. Kinsman do you want to believe this false ideology. I don’t think so. And CNN made a mockery of him. Today is 2004, I guess he blew it this time. Again why don’t you believe Camping? Because he wasn’t guided to the right belief. It is like you going to Africa teaching an African to read the Bible. He can read it but then needs help and guidance to understand it. Which guidance? Catholic? Protestant? Atheist?

In the end it is our responsiblity to find the truth. The Catholics have nourished the Bible for many years from the holy crusades to WWII during Hitler’s reign of power. RNRobert is upset with your post b/c of one thing, The Catholics have nourished the Bible for years and now Protestants start adding, subtracting, interpreting the Bible in many ways.

Kinsman you mean well but be open and guide will shine the truth to your heart.

 

[James1234]

It’s so amazing that you have Kinsman and Spokenword attacking RNRobert on sola scripture yet can’t even say a word on the importance of Mary. Kind of sad.

 

[James1234]

You attack RNRobert for his strong Catholic beliefs b/c you know where he is coming from. What’s your faith? Your religion?

 

[RNRobert]

James1234:

Kinsman has a good heart but without the Catholic Traditions where would the Protestants be. They wouldn’t have anything to criticize.

Kinsman has to understand that the Bible is a very complex book that can be interpreted in many ways. Why do you think we have so many denominations (about 30,000) in the U.S. only. In the end the Catholics have the truth. Protestants don’t like to hear that but it is the truth, end of story.

Harold Camping has his own radio show and had a book out titled “1994” In his book he talks about scripture pointing to the fact that world will end in September 1994. Camping said it may or may happen, he is not saying that is the date. Yet he titles his book “1994”. So you have this one man who started a crusade and religion of his belief. Kinsman do you want to believe this false ideology. I don’t think so. And CNN made a mockery of him. Today is 2004, I guess he blew it this time. Again why don’t you believe Camping? Because he wasn’t guided to the right belief. It is like you going to Africa teaching an African to read the Bible. He can read it but then needs help and guidance to understand it. Which guidance? Catholic? Protestant? Atheist?

In the end it is our responsiblity to find the truth. The Catholics have nourished the Bible for many years from the holy crusades to WWII during Hitler’s reign of power. RNRobert is upset with your post b/c of one thing, The Catholics have nourished the Bible for years and now Protestants start adding, subtracting, interpreting the Bible in many ways.

Kinsman you mean well but be open and guide will shine the truth to your heart.

From reading Kinsman’s posts here and on other threads, it seems all Kinsman knows of Catholic theology is what he reads from Jack Chick tracts, or other inflammatory anti-Catholic material.
In the Assumption of Mary thread, he accused Catholics of “sola ecclesia.” Anyone who has actually READ what the Catholic Church teaches knows this is a lie. Read Dei Verbum (one of Vatican II’s documents) and it will tell you that the Church considers itself the SERVANT of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. BTW, most of what you call unscriptural was believed by Christians (Orthodox and Catholic) for 1500 years before Protest-antism saw the light of day. To believe that Christians were in the dark for 1000 years before Luther ‘discovered’ the ‘truth’ is laughable.
I also take offense at Kinsman’s attitude towards Catholics. He can only talk to us in pejorative terms (i.e. Romanist) and acts as if we are a bunch of ignoramuses who would learn the ‘truth’ if only we’d study the scriptures instead of being told what to believe. I guess his only purpose on this wewbsite is to ‘enlighten’ us ‘dupes.’ First of all Kinsman, the Bible is OUR BOOK which you wouldn’t even have except for us, a fact even Martin Luther had to admit. Secondly, if you had read my first posts completely (which obviously you did not) You would have known that I am not a cradle Catholic. I was an arrogant, Bible-know-it-all Protestant just like YOU. I became Catholic from studying the Scriptures! For that matter, so did other former Protestants I can think of, like Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akins, Marcus Grodi, etc…

Thanks for your kind posts, james, and welcome to the fight!

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Mornin’ RNBob,

"From reading Kinsman’s posts here and on other threads, it seems all Kinsman knows of Catholic theology is what he reads from Jack Chick tracts, or other inflammatory anti-Catholic material.
In the Assumption of Mary thread, he accused Catholics of “sola ecclesia.” "

I first encountered “sola ecclesia” when reading some of James White’s stuff. I don’t exactly remember how he used the term, but I spose the charge stems from the following misperceptions and misconceptions:

1. The Church teaches contrary to Scripture. i.e. some teachings contradict Scripture. Church says white and Scripture says black. The church also contradicts Scripture when it proposes binding teachings which go beyond what Scripture says. e.g. Assumption of Mary.
2. The Church does the above because of some assumed superiority over Scripture and belief that it is a higher authority than Scripture itself, that it is the ultimate authority.

Just because the Church claims to be an authoritative interpreter does not mean that she perceives herself as the highest of all authorities. After all, she would not knowingly and self-consciously contradict scripture.

Also the fact that the Church feels empowered to produce binding and unchangeable interpretations of Scripture does not mean it is claiming superiority over Scripture. After all, Protestants do the very same thing. Ever heard of sola fide? If James White et al were to carry the underlying premise of sola ecclesia to its logical conclusion, they could not claim that such fundamental Protestants dogmas, being a result of fallible human interpretation, might possibly be wrong. They won’t do that.

What we are really arguing about is whether the Catholic or Protestant interpretive traditions more faithfully preserve the true meaning of Scripture. ie.g which one is the better guardian of the truth. Both camps are alike in that they work with unchanging interpretive traditions promoted by a living teaching authority. They just operate by different rules.

Cordially,

ferd

 

[Kinsman]

RNRobert:

From reading Kinsman’s posts here and on other threads, it seems all Kinsman knows of Catholic theology is what he reads from Jack Chick tracts, or other inflammatory anti-Catholic material. In the Assumption of Mary thread, he accused Catholics of “sola ecclesia.”

Sorry, but you falsely accuse me again. I’ve only read one of those Chick tracks in my entire life. My arguments derive from the study of the Scriptures, theological works, literary works on Church history, study of the Catholic catechism and talking to Catholic clergy and laity.

As for “sola ecclesia,” it simply means that the Roman hierarchy has set itself up as the final authority regarding the matters of faith. And you have accepted this as true. If it declares a certain teaching an “article of faith,” all Roman Catholics MUST believe it to be considered “Catholic:” The Papacy, Marian extrabiblical doctrines, Purgatory, Indulgences, Prayer to “Saints,” Adoration of relics, etc. You have room to ask questions, but Rome has/had the final say.

This you claim is the answer to Christ’s prayer in Jn. 17:22-23. But this is confomity, not unity. Christ, in His High Priestly prayer, was referring to unity of inward faith *in Him *(see vss. 20-21), not outward conformity based on spiritual despotism, the power of an ecclesiastical elite. Such an idea, or structure of conformity, is foreign to the N. T. Scriptures. That the Bishop of Rome is “head of the Church on earth,” the “vicar of Christ,” and that the church of Rome is the Church Christ “founded” were all slow post-Apostolic developments, contested all the way, even to this day. There is an historic catholic (universal) church, made up of all true believers since Pentecost. But the “Roman Catholic” church was a time-developed religious structure.

You tell me as part of your argrments that you were once like me, a “Protestant.” If that’s a valid argument then you must also consider that the Reformers once were all Roman Catholics, and going back further, the Apostles and the first believers were all Jews believing in Judaism. What these latter had in unity was not their “religious” affiliation, but their personal faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. This is the unity Christ prayed for, unity in Him - to His glory - *that the world may believe that God sent Him. *

 

[bob]

Kinsman:

…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. … I consider faith personal, not ecclesiastical. … If you’re a true believer you’ll … do it alone. Pope so-and-so is not going to hold your hand…

Great! You have a Bible, you go it alone, have complete understanding by the grace of God. No Pope, no teacher “to hold your hand” - except the grace of God and inspiration of the Holy Spirit and you, yourself.

Fantastic!

Let me ask you:

Are the generations of Christians prior to Jerome, condemned because the bible as we see it was not in existence?

Are the generations of Christians after Jerome, condemned because the bible was only handwritten and available only to the Church and the rich?

Are the generations of Christians after Gutenberg, condemned because the printed bible was not available in sufficient quantity?

Even today, 2004, .
If I don’t own a bible, cannot afford a bible, cannot read, etc, then am I condemned because I cannot practise Sola Scriptura?

I cannot have “personal faith” and “do it alone” when** I do not have a bible to verify the “truth”.**

Where do I find truth? Where do I find God?

Does Sola Scriptura means no bible - Go to Hell?

 

[RNRobert]

bob:

Let me ask you:

Are the generations of Christians prior to Jerome, condemned because the bible as we see it was not in existence?

Are the generations of Christians after Jerome, condemned because the bible was only handwritten and available only to the Church and the rich?

Are the generations of Christians after Gutenberg, condemned because the printed bible was not available in sufficient quantity?

Even today, 2004, .
If I don’t own a bible, cannot afford a bible, cannot read, etc, then am I condemned because I cannot practise Sola Scriptura?

I cannot have “personal faith” and “do it alone” when** I do not have a bible to verify the “truth”.**

Where do I find truth? Where do I find God?

Does Sola Scriptura means no bible - Go to Hell?

Not to mention Christians living in places where the Bible is forbidden (China, North Korea, Cuba, etc…)

 

[Kinsman]

Bob:

Even today, 2004, If I don’t own a bible, cannot afford a bible, cannot read, etc, then am I condemned because I cannot practise Sola Scriptura? I cannot have “personal faith” and “do it alone” when** I do not have a bible to verify the “truth”.** Where do I find truth? Where do I find God? **Does Sola Scriptura means no bible - Go to Hell? **

I realize your questons are rhetorical, but the answer is “no,” as you very well know. When you read the Book of Acts, how did Peter communicate the Gospel message to his fellow Jews? When Paul took the message of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, how did he communicate the message of grace? How were the people saved?

The message of Messiah was preached and they were saved by their response of personal faith to the message regarding the sacrificial death, burial, and subsequent bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ on their behalf; for the total forgiveness of sins and the free gift of righteouness and eternal life (1 Cor. 15:1-3).

Your questions resemble those of the unbeliever who tries to taunt Christians by asking them about the undiscovered tribe in Africa who’s never heard the Gospel. Implying that the Christian faith is unrealistic and unfair, and their God is injust.

Read all my posts, did I ever claim salvation is based on “Sola Scriptura?” Your questions (taunts) are non sequitur. Try to stay logical in your posts.

 

[BobCatholic]

RNRobert:

What are these infamous 4 questions?

My “infamous 4 questions” are as following:

Using Scripture alone, please tell me:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.

According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions

Now, let us Catholics NOT answer these questions for our protestant brothers and sisters. We don’t want to share that part of the TRUTH with them YET since they cannot accept it now.
The reason is: The implications of honestly answering these questions spells doom for a certain man-made Tradition that makes null the Word of God, that protestants hold on to.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

BobCatholic:

My “infamous 4 questions” are as following:

Using Scripture alone, please tell me:

1. Where it says that the number of books in the New Testament is officially 27.
2. Where does it say what books belong in the NT?
3. Where does it say what versions of the books belong in the NT? For example: There was a version of Matthew’s Gospel that had 8 chapters worth of text. Another with 18. A third with 28. Which one is the correct one, using Scripture alone?
4. Where does it say which TRANSLATION of the books in the NT is the correct one?

The answers to these infamous 4 questions were determined infallibly, and correctly. If they’re not, then there’s no way to practice the principles of Sola Scriptura, since there’s no “Scriptura” to be the “Sola” authority.

According to Sola Scriptura, there must be a scriptural basis for these infallibly determined beliefs. So I look forward to the Bible verses that answer these 4 questions

Now, let us Catholics NOT answer these questions for our protestant brothers and sisters. We don’t want to share that part of the TRUTH with them YET since they cannot accept it now.
The reason is: The implications of honestly answering these questions spells doom for a certain man-made Tradition that makes null the Word of God, that protestants hold on to.

I hate tests. There are many questions that I dont have answers for,but thats ok. Ill focus my efforts elsewhere instead of just arguing. Ill be a doer instead of an arguer

 

[BobCatholic]

SPOKENWORD:

I hate tests.

Ah. So how do we test whether we are in the faith? Testing is good!

There are many questions that I dont have answers for,but thats ok.

It really is OK? I’m not sure…

If these 4 questions can’t be answered, then why is the Didache not considered part of the NT? Maybe the Bible is missing books. Look a 1 Corinthians 5:9. Paul wrote a letter BEFORE 1st Corinthians? Where is it? Ohoh!

Martin Luther wanted to throw out Revelation, Jude, Hebrews and James. Maybe he was right after all - maybe the NT has books added to it that aren’t supposed to be there.

Revelation 22 and Exodus 4 warn against adding/subtracting from the word of God. We gotta know for sure or else.

Just something to think about.

 

[Kinsman]

BobCatholic:

Just something to think about.

Like I said before, you’re trampling on Holy ground. Careful about attacking God’s Word for the sake of your traditions. You WILL have to face Him one day.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Kinsman:

Like I said before, you’re trampling on Holy ground. Careful about attacking God’s Word for the sake of your traditions. You WILL have to face Him one day.

No one attacks God’s Word! geez… when will Protties understand Sacred Tradition does NOT contradict Scripture – which is but one of them!

 

[Kinsman]

Joanna:

Do you mean in this referrence to faith being personal “faith” as the theological virtue or “faith” meaning your personal set of beliefs?

I have no idea what you’re asking here. Personal faith is one’s personal trust in the Person and work of Jesus Christ alone for his/her salvation.

You also mention “all believers since Pentecost” and it seems to me that Pentecost and the upper room actually point to the communal rather than personal aspect of faith or the Faith. There were 120 (the12x10* the number of completeness=church)* with Mary, the mother of Jesus, including the women of course and family members and they all shared one empowering experience.

Jesus told the disciples, just before His ascension, that “they would be baptized by the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). This Spirit baptism occurred at the Feasts of Pentecost (Acts 2), not in the upper room where they had gathered when they returned to Jerusalem after witnessing Christ’s bodily ascension. The Feast did not take place until ten days later.

The Apostle Paul explains what this baptism of the Holy Spirit is in 1 Cor. 12:13: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” i.e., the Body of Christ, which is the Church (Col. 1:18, 26; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23). This is the spiritual unity Christ prayed for in Jn. 17 - unity with/in Christ.

The Church had its beginnings with the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The Church (the Body of Christ) is a spiritual organism which has been growing since the Day of Pentecost, made up of believing Jews and Gentiles. It’s not an organization headquartered in Rome. Since Pentecost all true believers are baptized into the Body of Christ, the Church, at the time of personal faith in Him (ref. Acts 11:12-16).

It must be pointed out that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not the sound of the rushing of wind, and not their speaking in tongues, which also occurred at that time. Nor is it the empowering by the Spirit. Speaking in tongues was a *gift *of the Holy Spirit and they exercised this gift after being "filled" with the Holy Spirit with Whom they were baptized (Acts 2:4).

It is true that in the upper room there were gathered about 120 persons. But when it says in Acts two that "they" were all together in one place on the Day of Pentecost, the “they” is more likely referring to the 12 Apostles, not all the 120 that were gathered in the upper room 10 days prior. Acts 2:14 mentions only Peter and the eleven Apostles, and in verse 15 Peter says, “for these men are not drunk…”

 

[RNRobert]

Kinsman, ferd, spoken:

I have a question. In your church, if there is a dispute between Christians (say, for instance about doctrinal issues), who is the final arbiter?
For instance…
Who is Jesus- is he God incarnate, merely a man, or an angel?
Are there three persons in One God, or is ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’ merely different titles for the same person?
Is Baptism really necessary for salvation, or is it merely some form membership initiation?
For that matter, how should we baptize: In the name of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, or simply in the name of Jesus, as some sects do? Also, should we baptize infants, or is that just foolishness?
The Lord’s Supper- is Jesus really present (as Lutherans and Episcopalians believe) and provide real grace, or is it simply a memorial supper?
Why don’t all Christians worship on the Jewish Sabbath? Some sects believe worshiping on a Sunday is the mark of the Beast.

Who has the final say on these issues (not to mention other issues such as morals, church governance and worship)? Don’t say Scripture, because both sides on an issue can stack up Scripture quotes to the ceiling.
Jesus founded a church, not a Bible society. he gave his apostles authority to teach and preach and to make binding doctrinal statements (like the council of Jerusalem in Acts 9). Did this teaching authority pass from the Apostles when they died to the Bible? I don’t think so.
BTW, do you believe in the Trinity, or the Incarnation? if you do, please tell me where I can find those terms in the Bible. Please don’t give me Bible texts that ‘prove’ these concepts. If you are going to condemn Catholic doctrines because they are not printed in black and white in the Bible, then I should hold you to the same standard.

 

[bob]

Kinsman:

I realize your questons are rhetorical, but the answer is “no,” as you very well know. When you read the Book of Acts, how did Peter communicate the Gospel message to his fellow Jews? When Paul took the message of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, how did he communicate the message of grace? How were the people saved?

The message of Messiah was preached and they were saved by their response of personal faith to the message regarding the sacrificial death, burial, and subsequent bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ on their behalf; for the total forgiveness of sins and the free gift of righteouness and eternal life (1 Cor. 15:1-3).

So you now say that we can receive the message via preaching - without the Bible.

Does it mean we can be saved by oral Tradition alone, without ever seeing a copy of the Bible?

Are you now admitting that the Sciptures were first taught orally and can be still taught orally via Tradition and the Church which receives its mandate from Christ and the Apostles?

How do you get Sola Scriptura without the Bible?

Isn’t your whole premise of Sola Scriptura based on Bible Alone?

The OT + the magical 27 books of the NT popping out of the blue saying “Read me, read Me”, without a authoritative body - the Church selecting them?

In you reply to RNRobert thread #303 you said:

Kinsman:

"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.”

How do you do all that if you do not have the Bible. How did the first converts know that Peter and the Apostles were right if they did not have “the ultimate authority of God’s written Word” “for reproof, for correction”?

Kinsman:

Your questions resemble those of the unbeliever who tries to taunt Christians by asking them about the undiscovered tribe in Africa who’s never heard the Gospel. Implying that the Christian faith is unrealistic and unfair, and their God is injust

I am not taunting you, just stating facts nothing but the facts.

God is just, He left His Apostles and His Church to teach His people. He did not leave us a book and say “go read and be saved!”

 

[bob]

Kinsman:

Like I said before, you’re trampling on Holy ground. Careful about attacking God’s Word for the sake of your traditions. You WILL have to face Him one day.

Exactly my sentiments! The Catholic Church put the books in - the Protestants threw them out. Who was/is attacking God’s Word you say?
Wonder what God is saying to Luther right now…Hmmm

 

[bob]

Kinsman:

The Apostle Paul explains what this baptism of the Holy Spirit is in 1 Cor. 12:13: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” i.e., the Body of Christ, which is the Church (Col. 1:18, 26; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15; 5:23). This is the spiritual unity Christ prayed for in Jn. 17 - unity with/in Christ.

Hmmm… and how united are the 30,000+ Protestant churches today?