Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[bob]

RNRobert:

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

Thanks!

 

[bob]

SPOKENWORD:

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

Not in the Bible can’t answer? One more tongue tied Sola Scripturist…
Answer hint: Try Tradition

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

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

Originally Posted by 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.

test everything; hold fast to what is good

1 Thess 5:21

Test everything. Even BobCatholic’s questions need answers.

Justin

 

[RNRobert]

bob:

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

How *good *it is for the brethren to dwell together in unity! (Psalm 133:1)

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

On the Contrary!

I’m DEFENDING God’s Holy Word, which you have rejected!

You are rejecting God’s word through holding on to a certain man-made tradition that makes null the word of God.

Can you answer the infamous 4 questions using Bible verses, yes or no? If you can’t just admit you can’t instead of railing against me for challenging that one man-made tradition you are holding on to.

 

[BobCatholic]

RNRobert:

How *good *it is for the brethren to dwell together in unity! (Psalm 133:1)

AMEN!

I’d love to know how Kinsman determined which one of the tens of thousands of sola scripturist denominations was the correct one using the Scriptures alone? How does he know which interpretation is the correct one, using the scriptures alone?

 

[Kinsman]

bob:

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?

Certainly one is saved apart from reading the Bible. But he is not saved “by oral Tradition,” but BELIEVING the Gospel message concerning Jesus Christ.

Have you believed the Gospel message, Bob? Have you received by personal faith the truth that Christ died for ALL your sins: past, present and future? And by His shed blood you are *forever cleansed *of those sins? That through faith in Him you now possess eternal life? This is the Gospel message, minus extrabiblical Roman Traditions such as Penance and Purgatory.

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?

My friend, the SCRIPTURES were never taught orally. The Gospel (good news message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified) was/is preached orally. That’s how God ordained it (1 Cor. 15:1-2). But the SCRIPTURES are written. There is no such thing as “oral” Scriptures. They’re the written Word of God.

How do you get Sola Scriptura without the Bible?

Actually, based on your confusion above, I’m not sure you actually know what “Sola Scriptura” means. I’m not sure you know what “Scripture” means. Why don’t you define these terms for me and we’ll see if we’re on the same wave length which is a good place to start for intelligent and meaningful dialog.

 

[BobCatholic]

Kinsman:

Actually, based on your confusion above, I’m not sure you actually know what “Sola Scriptura” means. I’m not sure you know what “Scripture” means. Why don’t you define these terms for me and we’ll see if we’re on the same wave length which is a good place to start for intelligent and meaningful dialog.

Actually, protestants can’t even agree on the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Some say “it is not in the Bible, it is satanic.”
Some say “the Bible is the HIGHEST authority.”
Some say “the Bible is the ONLY infallible source of doctrine”
Some say “All beliefs, and practices must come from the Bible.”
Some say “the Bible is the ONLY authority”

It all depends. I’m sure there are more differing definitions, but these are just a short list I’ve seen of definitions of Sola Scriptura.

How about you telling us which definition you hold to?

 

[RNRobert]

BobCatholic:

AMEN!

I’d love to know how Kinsman determined which one of the tens of thousands of sola scripturist denominations was the correct one using the Scriptures alone? How does he know which interpretation is the correct one, using the scriptures alone?

I’d also like to know where he can find the unity Jesus prayed for (John 17:21), or the One body, One Spirit, One Lord, One faith, One Baptism Paul wrote of (Ephesians 4:4,5)…

 

[RNRobert]

Protestants claim that the Reformation freed Christians to interpret the Bible for themselves without some Pope ‘holding their hand.’ It’s a charming myth, but a myth nonetheless. What the ‘Reformers’ really wanted was the freedom to interpret the Scriptures as THEY saw fit. Luther disagreed violently with anyone who disagreed with him, and approved the use of force by civil leaders to supress the anabaptists. Calvin transformed Geneva, as author H.W. Crocker put it, into a “Christian police state.” People who held beliefs contrary to the party line were expelled, jailed or executed (like the Unitarian Servetus). He also sent officials to inspect homes to make sure there were no crucifixes, statues, etc. In England, anyone who didn’t worship in the Anglican Church were jailed, tortured and executed, whether they were Catholic or Calvinist. In school we are told how the Pilgrims came to this country to find religious freedom. This is true, but they extended that freedom only to those who worshipped as they did; others, such as Quakers and Catholics, got short shrift.

Even today this double-standard exists in Protestantism. I’ve ready many stories of converts to Catholicism who’ve told how they were ostracized by Protestant friends and family, even though many of these converts came to believe in Catholicism through their ‘personal judgement’ regarding the Bible! Why is it that a Protestant is free to use his personal judgement rgarding the Scriptures to join any Protestant church (or start his own), but if that person uses the same judgement to become a Catholic, he is a poor, deluded, fool???

 

[Sherlock]

Kinsman,

I think you’ve done an excellent job defending Sola Scriptura. I don’t think you have succeeded in your efforts, but that’s because of the serious problems with the doctrine itself, and not from any lack on your part.

I won’t re-hash all of the arguments that others have used, but I did want to respond to a few of your comments here and there, in no particular order. (And because this discussion is fairly long, I’m only going to refer to your posts that are on this latest “page”.)

You wrote: "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.” "

I was a Protestant for some years, and so understand your position here. It’s a nice, comforting thought, but unfortunately history, and the lived experience of millions, contradicts this position. Important questions vital to our Christian lives are not answered by this “handbook”. I attended a number of different denominations’ services (all Bible-only based), and found doctrines varying or even contradicting one another, and on very important doctrines. When I had a question regarding the meaning of some passage, I could get on the phone, talk to a number of different pastors, and have very different answers with very different ramifications for how I lived my life. Not that there weren’t similarities, mind you, but ultimately I was left in some despair: who has authority? Why should I believe this interpretation over this other? Yet I knew that Jesus had founded a church which was, as Paul said, “the pillar and foundation of truth”, versus an individualistic “empowering” of sorts. (Of course, at the time my definition of “church” was different than now.) And Paul also said that prophecy was not a matter of private interpretation, clearly indicating an authority residing in some form or other…also, when Paul sends out Timothy to correct the spreading of false teaching, it was obvious that there was a truth that Paul knew that these possibly well-intentioned folks didn’t. I mean, what gave him the authority to tell individuals that their ideas were wrong? So when you write, “Actually, when it comes to the essentials of a Biblical faith many mainline denominations (not all) are in total agreement”, I have to wonder if you have really examined the differing doctrines of Protestant denominations—for that matter, how do you define “mainline”? If, by mainline, you refer to a group of older denominations exhibiting similarities in their doctrines, then naturally you would have found similarities. You would have found a wide array of doctrines on essential matters in Bible-only-based denominations if you had strayed beyond that comfy subset.

You wrote: “Churches throughout the empire already recognized the twenty-seven Books of the N.T. as divinely inspired.”

I think it would help to be more informed about the history of the formation of the canon, both OT and NT. You present it here as if it were a staightforward affair, with complete agreement about what was and wasn’t divinely inspired. This is an oversimplification…

You wrote: “It is/was obvious to many they’re not divinely inspired.”

How is it obvious?

 

[Kinsman]

To **BOB: **As a followup, if your question is that what is found in the Scriptures is what was previously taught by word of mouth by the Apostles, then yes. That’s been the contention of the “Sola Scriptura” argument all along. If that’s what you’re asking, then yes. You’re actually making our point.

Both “Romanism” and “Protestantism” agree that the Scriptures are the revealed, written Word of God, that is, they’re of divine origin. There’s no problem there. But because they are divine in origin, we give them absolute authority when it comes to issues of faith and practice. If they’re God’s Word, they have the authority of God Himself. There’s nothing difficult or illogical about that.

Where we part is the extrabiblical traditions espoused by the Roman church, and any other church for that matter. These being the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Indulgences, Penance, Papal supremacy, Transubstantiation (this one based more on faulty interpretation of Scripture), Praying to “Saints,” and Adoration of relics and images. I may have forgotten some, but that should suffice.

National Israel was historically formed before the Law and the Prophets, i.e., the O. T. Scriptures. But the Law and the Prophets contained in the O.T. Scriptures became Israel’s ultimate divine authority for all the successive generations after Mt. Sinai. In like manner, the Church historically came into existence through the preaching of the Gospel message before any of the the N.T. Scriptures were wirtten. But as the Law and the Prophets became Israel’s divine, written authority to all their generations up to the coming of Messiah, so God provided for His Church (the “Body of Christ,” and all subsequent generations of true believers) the N.T. writings as its ulltimate authority for faith and practice. By definition there can be no higher authority than God’s own Word. And, yes, what we have in the N.T. writings is what was first orally taught by the Apostles starting in Jerusalem and then to the Gentile nations - if not an even greater explanation of the faith. Hence, we have no excuse.

It’s similar to a car being first manufactured and then an owner’s manual is written by the manufacturer and supplied to the buyer. God formed His Church at Pentecost and supplied us with His “owner’s manual” comprised of the Gospel accounts, the Epistles and the Book of Revelation. The N.T. Scritures are the mind of God in written form for His Church, hard copied, for all generations until Christ’s return. And based on this written, divine Authority, we can and have the right to reject ALL extrabiblical traditions such as the ones I listed above.

It’s that simple, my friend. There isn’t an argument on earth that can stand up against it. God has made sure of it by putting it in writing. With great patience He has allowed much corruption to develope in the Church since it was first formed at Pentecost (the parable of the wheat and tares), just as corruption developed in Israel; nevertheless, God is watching over HIS WORD to perform it (Jer. 1:12). Like Him, His Word does not change. You would do well to study it, believe it, and give it its proper place of authority in your own life. Afterall, you’ll eventually be judged by it.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

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.

Many do this same thing and come to different conclusions. How can one be infallbley certain that the conclusion that he has drawn is correct?

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.

Who is the final authority for you? The bible? Some who would say the same thing hold conflicting and contradictory doctrine to yours. The holy Spirit? Some who would say that same hold conflicting and contradictory doctrine to yours. How can one be infallibley certain that what one believes is correct, even when the beliefs of other bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians conflict with and contradict it?

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.

If all “true believers” make up the church, as you say, than conflicting and contradictory doctrine must be acceptable. Do you find that scripture supports this idea? If so, where? If not, how can all true believers make up “the church”, regardless of conflicting beliefs, if conflicting beliefs are not acceptable?

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. *

This unity must then be a VISIBLE unity because the world does not see through spiritual eyes. One cannot look at the state of Christianity in the world today and be convinced that God sent Jesus based on the unity they are observing. Sure, we are all united in Christ in a spiritual manner, but the unity of the church MUST also be visible.

 

[RNRobert]

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?

Don’t forget that the current ending to the Gospel of Mark was not as it was originally written. Also, I think the last chapter of John was also added at later date, if I’m not mistaken.

 

[Kinsman]

To: SHERLOCK, you wrote:

>I won’t re-hash all of the arguments that others have used

Well, actually, you did “re-hash” all the previous arguments. They’re the standard rationale handed down by your apologists. You haven’t brought anything new to the table. I suggest you read all my posts.

>I was a Protestant for some years, and so understand your >position here.

Being a once “Protestant” does not guarantee your understanding of my position, nor is it a valid argument. As I told another, the Reformers were all once Roman Catholics, and the Apostles all once followed the tradition-driven Judaism of their day. The Reformers found error in the religious system governed by Rome based on the written Word of God. And Christ Himself exposed the errors of the Pharisaic tradition-driven Judaism of His day and corrected them by appealing to what was written in their Scriptures. The grounds for the argument that the Divine, written Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Church is not based on subjective experience, or personal opinion, but the FACT that it’s the actual Word of God in written form.

You gave an example of your own inner conflict regarding Biblical interpretation of what you referred to as “very important doctrines.” Sorry to hear that, but this is far too vague. Did these doctrines involve the basis and assurance of your salvation? The Person of Christ? The nature of God? The Bible covers ALL of these doctrines very clearly and none are in need of some ultimate human authority to inform you. To have not gotten a proper Biblical answer on any of these basic doctrines, which are the essentials of the Christian faith, you would have to have been either involved in a liberal church or even some “Christian” cult, or maybe you yourself simply refused to accept what God’s Word actually had to say regarding these issues. That then wouldn’t be problem with “Sola Scriptura” but your own inner rebellion. I don’t know, you’re all too vague…but your argumentation is far too subjective to be valid. And the fact that you joined the ranks of Rome has nothing to do with questioning the validity of doctrine of “Sola Scriptura,” because in order for you to have joined the RC you had to not only, by faith, accept the authority of their “magesterium” but all their extrabiblical doctrines as well. It’s a packaged deal and far, far beyond your own personal conflict at the time.

*>**Yet I knew that Jesus had founded a church which was, as *
*>Paul said, “the pillar and foundation of truth”, versus an *
*>individualistic “empowering” of sorts. (Of course, at the time *
>my definition of “church” was different than now.)

Please, Sherlock, I wasn’t born yesterday. This is standard Roman Catholic apologetics and you’re embellishing your story with it. And for this reason you’ve caused it to lack any serious credibility.

>I think it would help to be more informed about the history of >the formation of the canon…this is an oversimplification…

I have read extensively on the history of the formation of the canon of the Scriptures. That’s why I prefaced my comment with "it certainly has a history." But Roman apologists desperately try to make it a far bigger issue than what it actually is (motive: casting doubt, like any monarchy), for the sake of retaining its power and dominion over the hearts and minds of Christians everywhere. But the Scriptures speak of no such dominion.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

The grounds for the argument that the Divine, written Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Church is not based on subjective experience, or personal opinion, but the FACT that it’s the actual Word of God in written form.

I don’t think there’s any dispute about scripture being the actual word of God in written form. That is something about which we all agree. The disagreement comes in your statement that the “written word of God is the ultimate authority for the Church”. God never claims “ultimate authority” status for the written word IN the written word. Therefore one would need to go outside of the written word in order to draw this conclusion.

The Church must have as its ultimate authority that which it has always had as it’s ultimate authority; God’s word as handed down in writing AND in oral form. Nothing in scripture tells us that at some point in history a NT would be written and once the inspired books are authoritatively identified THEN the written word would become the ultimate authority.

Is the written word authoritative? Yep. Scripture says so and many examples are given in which scripture is used as AN authority. Is the written word the ulitmate authority? No. Nothing in scripture supports it.

You gave an example of your own inner conflict regarding Biblical interpretation of what you referred to as “very important doctrines.”

Sorry to hear that, but this is far too vague. Did these doctrines involve the basis and assurance of your salvation? The Person of Christ? The nature of God? The Bible covers ALL of these doctrines very clearly and none are in need of some ultimate human authority to inform you.

There are conflicting and contradictory doctrines held within Protestantism, each claiming to be the truth as “clearly” shown in scripture. Some say that scripture “clearly” shows that Jesus is God. Others say that the bible “clearly” shows that Jesus is not God. Some say that the bible “clearly” shows that God is a triune God. Others say that “clearly” the bible teaches nothing at all about the trinity.

---

Apparently simply claiming that something is “clearly in scripture” doesn’t mean that it’s absolute truth because truth can’t contradict itself. When there is confusion and conflict as to what the “ultimate authority” of the bible is saying to whom does the Christian turn? The bible? That’s what didn’t work in the first place. The holy Spirit? Even spirit-filled believers hold conflicting and contradictory interpretations of scripture. The sola Scripturist must believe that God left no definitive, authoritative means for interpreting scripture outside of the individual believer. That’s where sola Scripturists and Catholics part company.

---

---

 

[Sherlock]

Kinsman,

You wrote: “Being a once “Protestant” does not guarantee your understanding of my position, nor is it a valid argument.”

I never posited my past as a Protestant as an argument, valid or invalid. I mentioned it merely because I am familiar with the Sola Scriptura theory as an insider. Now, that doesn’t “guarantee” that I understand your particular interpretation of that theory, but then I never claimed that it did. It does mean, however, that I am familiar with the theory, having once held it.

By extension, neither is the fact that many of the “Reformers” were Catholic an argument. The Arian heresy, after all, was begun by a Catholic bishop. Arius wasn’t saved from heresy by virtue of being a Catholic any more than Luther was.

You wrote: “You gave an example of your own inner conflict regarding Biblical interpretation of what you referred to as “very important doctrines.” Sorry to hear that, but this is far too vague. Did these doctrines involve the basis and assurance of your salvation?”

Sorry to have been vague, but I was short on time. And I wouldn’t characterize this as an “internal conflict” so much as a search for truth, not relativism. Yes, the doctrines that I referred to did involve the assurance of salvation. To name one, the concept of “once saved, always saved”: the Covenant church I went to for a while held to this, but I found it intellectually problematic. Now, my Lutheran friends at the time rejected this concept. This is a very important aspect of our lives as Christians, but yet both “sides” saw the affirmation of their particular doctrine in Scripture. To say that this is not an essential aspect of salvation is false. To be told (as I was) that “each to his own” is simply theological relativism, which I reject. Truth is not relative.

You wrote:“To have not gotten a proper Biblical answer on any of these basic doctrines, which are the essentials of the Christian faith, you would have to have been either involved in a liberal church or even some “Christian” cult, or maybe you yourself simply refused to accept what God’s Word actually had to say regarding these issues.”

No to all of the above. The Covenant church I attended, the non-denom church I attended, and my Lutheran friends, all quoted Scripture quite zealously and profusely in defense of their doctrines. They weren’t neglecting Scripture, they simply had differing (and contradictory) interpretations.

You wrote: “But the Scriptures speak of no such dominion.”

Then why did Paul send Timothy out to correct false teaching? Certainly that implies—oh, horror of horrors!—that Paul had teaching authority.

 

[Kinsman]

Sherlock:

You wrote: “But the Scriptures speak of no such dominion.” Then why did Paul send Timothy out to correct false teaching? Certainly that implies—oh, horror of horrors!—that Paul had teaching authority.

My goodness, man, that’s your answer for Rome’s claim for dominion? Paul was an Apostle, he had Apostolic authority. The Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and New Testament prophets (Eph. 2:20-22). Oh yeah, I very well know that Rome claims Apostolic succession in its Bishops, but the truth is Scripture teaches no such thing. It’s an empty boast and Matt. 16:18 is not a Biblical “proof text” for it. Peter himself gives the qualifications for an Apostle in Acts chapter one: He had to have accompanied the original 12 all the time they were with Jesus beginning with the baptism of John, until the day of Christ’s ascension. An Apostle was one who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ - they were called to be His witnesses. They had to personally be there! Of course Paul was a special case, the Lord revealed Himself personally to Him (Acts 26) and he got His Apostleship and instruction directly from Christ, and demonstrated the signs of an Apostle (Gal. 1; 2 Cor. 12). These qualifications alone hinder any so-called Apostolic succession. Unless the present Pope is 2000 years old and qualifies by the above requirements.

The assurance of one’s salvation is most certainly is a serious doctrine. Your assurance, my friend, is the empty tomb (please read Rom. 4:25; 5:1-2). It starts with the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross where He bore ALL your sins (1Pet. 2:24; Heb. 1:3). And by that once for all sacrifice of Himself, he reconciled you forever to God, through faith (2 Cor. 5:14-21). Salvation and its assurance is that simple, God did not make it difficult for us.

Curious to me why you made camp with Romanism which denies the sufficiency of Christ’s cross to cleanse the believer of all sins through His death and shed blood on the cross (Heb. 9-10), by espousing their extrabiblical doctrines of “Penance” and “Purgatory.” Your problem, Sherlock, is not with “Sola Scriptura” or even Protestantism, but you refuse to believe Christ did it all for you and the sufficiency of divine GRACE toward you because of Christ’s once for all sacrifice on your behalf. There’s most definitely assurance of one’s salvation in the Epistles, especially Pauline (Rom. 3:23-30), but not in Rome. It takes you to the door but does not allow you to cross over the threshold. Unlike God’s written Word which takes you all the way in through Christ alone (Jn. 5:24). You’re looking everywhere but God’s Word.

 

[BobCatholic]

Kinsman:

To **BOB: **As a followup, if your question is that what is found in the Scriptures is what was previously taught by word of mouth by the Apostles, then yes.

Where is that in the Bible? So you’re saying EVERYTHING that the Apostles taught, including their interpretation of scripture IS in the Bible?

You’re leaving yourself vulnerable, man, you gotta put up some supporting Bible verses that show this.

I’m not talking about your interpretation of Bible verses, which is NOT the same thing as the Bible, but actually prooftext.

“And so, the apostles put to pen everything they taught, including their interpretation of scripture.”

Both “Romanism” and “Protestantism” agree

What is this “Romanism” thing? I asked before and haven’t heard the answer.

If they’re God’s Word, they have the authority of God Himself. There’s nothing difficult or illogical about that.

But here’s the rub: Scriptures have to be interpreted.
In this area, there are no infallible doctrines that Sola Scripturists agree on, including the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Where we part is the extrabiblical traditions espoused by the Roman church, and any other church for that matter.

So what you are claiming, is that Sola Scripturists DO NOT have extrabiblical traditions? That’s not true.

Wanna put it to the test? OK, answer my infamous 4 questions then That’s for STARTERS. I can bring up others if you want, but first try at the infamous 4 questions.

we can and have the right to reject ALL extrabiblical traditions such as the ones I listed above.

And you have the right to accept extrabiblical traditions, just as Sola Scripturists have done, including extrabiblical interpretations.

. God has made sure of it by putting it in writing.

God made sure the Scriptures were given to Godly men, who wrote down, translated,copied, distributed, laid their lives down for them, and today, you have inerrant scriptures you can count on.

HOWEVER, for some reason, God made sure that the Apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures was lost using the exact same method.

That’s inconsistent, and we Catholics don’t buy that bill of goods.
Protestants have accepted that as an extrabiblical tradition.

 

[BobCatholic]

Kinsman:

To **BOB: **As a followup, if your question is that what is found in the Scriptures is what was previously taught by word of mouth by the Apostles, then yes.

Where is that in the Bible? So you’re saying EVERYTHING that the Apostles taught, including their interpretation of scripture IS in the Bible?

You’re leaving yourself vulnerable, man, you gotta put up some supporting Bible verses that show this.

I’m not talking about your interpretation of Bible verses, which is NOT the same thing as the Bible, but actually prooftext.

“And so, the apostles put to pen everything they taught, including their interpretation of scripture.”

Both “Romanism” and “Protestantism” agree

What is this “Romanism” thing? I asked before and haven’t heard the answer.

If they’re God’s Word, they have the authority of God Himself. There’s nothing difficult or illogical about that.

But here’s the rub: Scriptures have to be interpreted.
In this area, there are no infallible doctrines that Sola Scripturists agree on, including the definition of Sola Scriptura.
I

Where we part is the extrabiblical traditions espoused by the Roman church, and any other church for that matter.

So what you are claiming, is that Sola Scripturists DO NOT have extrabiblical traditions? That’s not true.

Wanna put it to the test? OK, answer my infamous 4 questions then That’s for STARTERS. I can bring up others if you want, but first try at the infamous 4 questions.

we can and have the right to reject ALL extrabiblical traditions such as the ones I listed above.

And you have the right to accept extrabiblical traditions, just as Sola Scripturists have done.

. God has made sure of it by putting it in writing.

God made sure the Scriptures were given to Godly men, who wrote down, translated,copied, distributed, defended, laid their lives down for the Scriptures, and today, you have an inerrant set of Scriptures you can count on.

However, for some reason God didn’t do the same with the Apostolic Interpretation of Scripture. That was apparently lost, according to protestant extra-biblical tradition.

That is inconsistent. We Catholics don’t buy that bill of goods.