Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[Franz]

Kinsman, you underestimate the power of God because if you feel that God can protect the written word and not Sacred Tradition.

About the original manuscripts, if a mistake was made in the early copies, then all copies are flawed…point is the Church declared that these writings are inerrant because it is the Church that protected it, just like Sacred Tradition.

Do you believe in Apostolic Succession? I guess not. There is a thread I started on this, you might do well to read.

 

[Sherlock]

Spokenword,

I hope you’ll address my response to your earlier post–it’s up a few posts by now.

You wrote: “So much for 2timothy3-16. FULLY COMPETENT and EQUIPPED.I guess we needed more than Timothy talked about.”

I think you are suffering from a fallacious “either/or” approach. My translation has Scripture as “profitable”, that the “man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”. Paul’s letter to Timothy does not say that Scripture is the ONLY thing that is profitable. Pointing that out does not imply that it isn’t profitable. The Scriptures are part of the equipment for the man of God.

I’m trying to think of a way to illustrate this via analogy that would be simple to understand. Let me try this: say you are equipping a knight for fighting. You have yourself personally trained this knight. Telling him that a sword would be “profitable” to have is very true. The sword, in addition to the training you have given him, may make his outfit complete, equipping him for every knightly job that comes his way. Telling him that the sword is profitable does not mean that it is the ONLY item he needs. You have, after all, trained him, right? The sword, without your training (oral teaching), may land him in a heap of trouble if he doesn’t know how to use it. But pointing that out does not mean that you, the instructor, regard the sword as unprofitable.

Does that help?

 

[BobCatholic]

SPOKENWORD:

So much for 2timothy3-16. FULLY COMPETENT and EQUIPPED.I guess we needed more than Timothy talked about.

The verse assumes the one so equipped knows the answers to my infamous 4 questions before they can figure out what NT scripture is. Then the one equipped also need to answer the same 4 questions about the Old Testament as well. Can these answers be found in Scripture? I can’t. Maybe I don’t know enough about the Bible. I would have guessed Bible-smart protestants would have answered it by now using Scripture verses.

If this interpretation of 2 tim 3:16 means “all ya need is Scripture, that’s it, game over, nothing more” then these questions lead to problems since they’re not answered.

 

[Franz]

BobCatholic:

The verse assumes the one so equipped knows the answers to my infamous 4 questions before they can figure out what NT scripture is. Then the one equipped also need to answer the same 4 questions about the Old Testament as well. Can these answers be found in Scripture? I can’t. Maybe I don’t know enough about the Bible. I would have guessed Bible-smart protestants would have answered it by now using Scripture verses.

If this interpretation of 2 tim 3:16 means “all ya need is Scripture, that’s it, game over, nothing more” then these questions lead to problems since they’re not answered.

Can you restate the four questions and the premise behind the questions. Thanks.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

SPOKENWORD:

So much for 2timothy3-16. FULLY COMPETENT and EQUIPPED.I guess we needed more than Timothy talked about.

Paul talked about it, not Timothy. What we need to be fully equipped for every good work can pretty much be summed up in the 10 commandments, so Paul would have been right on.

Jesus’ words in John 16 in no way make void 2 Tim. Jesus didn’t say “I have much more to tell you about what you’ll need to be fully equipped for every good work”. No. He simply said “I have much more to tell you”. He went on to say that these things would later be revealed by the holy Spirit.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Sherlock:

I think you are suffering from a fallacious “either/or” approach. My translation has Scripture as “profitable”, that the “man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”. Paul’s letter to Timothy does not say that Scripture is the ONLY thing that is profitable. Pointing that out does not imply that it isn’t profitable. The Scriptures are part of the equipment for the man of God.

This is entirely true. I’m not clear on how sola Scripturists find the word “profitable (useful)” and “sufficient” to be synonymous. As you’ve said, Scripture is USEFUL toward the end of one being complete, equipped for every good work. Something can, indeed, be useful WITHOUT being sufficient.

Another example, if I’m going to bake a cake a mixing bowl would certainly be useful, in fact necessary, but not the slightest bit sufficient.

While I disagree with certain points of Protestantism I can at least sometimes see where they are coming from. I just can’t see it in this case. Maybe there is a Protestant on the board who can help me to see the sola Scripturist view. I’m not asking you to convince me that it’s true, mind you. I’d just really like to be able to see where you are coming from on this.

Thanks!

 

[BobCatholic]

Franz:

Can you restate the four questions and the premise behind the questions. Thanks.

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.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

BobCatholic:

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.

This implication of the answers to your questions has drawn many-a-Protestant into the Church.

 

[Kinsman]

“Now we have received , not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might KNOW the things FREELY GIVEN TO US BY GOD…” “But the naturual man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised…” (1 Cor. 3:12-16).

The assumption here is that the individual interpretor of scripture is really the one who understands, and those who’s interpretations conflict with and contradict his are the one who “cannot understand them”.

Not at all. The implication derived from that verse is that the individual believer, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, has the power, by the Spirit who indwells him, to understand what God has revealed regarding the “things freely given to us by God.”

These things are clearly revealed in the N.T. Scriptures, especially Pauline, and need not be filtered through, or first interpreted by, any kind of mediatorial or ecclesiastical institution. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer. Yes, God has provided teachers in the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:11), but He does not assign to them the attribute of “infallibility.” For this reason James gives his warning in 3:1.

Papal infallibility of often quite misunderstood. Jesus is infallible because he is God. He is infalllible in every way by virtue of who he is. That is quite different from papal infallibility. The pope, by virtue of the office he holds, is protected BY THE HOLY SPIRIT (not of himself) by ever OFFICIALLY TEACHING ERROR IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS

I very well understand Rome’s teaching on “Papal infallibility.” However, there is no such things as the “office” of “Pope” revealed in the Scriptures (Eph. 4:11-12). And I’ve already gone through the error and impossibility of the idea of “Apostolic succession” (see my post #354). Someone on here tried to rationalize by saying that Rome’s Popes and Bishops didn’t succeed in the “office” of the Apostles, but only in the “authority” of that office. In other words, they themselves are not Apostles but operate in their authority. But you can’t have the authority of the office without the reality of it. That’s like telling someone that he has the power of the President but, oh by the way, we’ve terminated the office. Exclusive authority, exclusive catholicity and exclusive interpretation of God’s Word are the exclusive boasts of the church of Rome. They are accepted by faith on the part of its devotees, not fact.
P.S. If you want future dialog, scrap the colored, bold type. Not easy to deal with when quoting. Is it really that important that you be seen and heard?

 

[BobCatholic]

Catholic4aReasn:

This implication of the answers to your questions has drawn many-a-Protestant into the Church.

Shhh!

That is the Catholic Church’s best kept secret

 

[BobCatholic]

Kinsman:

Not at all. The implication derived from that verse is that the individual believer, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, has the power, by the Spirit who indwells him, to understand what God has revealed regarding the “things freely given to us by God.”

Implication? Or your interpretatiion, which is nowhere in Scripture. Don’t tell me you’re using this “implication” to support Personal Infallibility, something you just denied?

Violation of Sola Scriptura: Using a protestant extra-biblical Tradition.

 

[Franz]

Why are Protestants here skipping the 4 questions? where are all the other Protestants? Even if they come to admit that this will just prove Sola Scriptura to be self defeating, at least come forward and own up to it…you owe it to yourself and you owe it to God.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

Not at all. The implication derived from that verse is that the individual believer, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, has the power, by the Spirit who indwells him, to understand what God has revealed regarding the “things freely given to us by God.”

The necessity of this would be the all doctrine would HAVE to be unanymous since the holy Spirit cannot contradict himself. Since doctrine among believer DOES conflict with and contradict the doctrine of other believers it’s clear that the holy Spirit is NOT working in this way in individual believers.

Scripture tells us that there are many things in scripture that are difficult to understand that the ignorant twist to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). How many of us can claim NOT to be ignorant in some way when it comes to interpreting scripture? If scripture scholars with advanced degrees disagree on what different passages of scripture mean how can the average individual, without the benefit of years of study (even WITH years of study) hope to come to an infallible interpretation of each and every passage of scripture? He can’t. The plethora of conflicting and contradictory interpretations among individual believers testifies to that fact, no matter how sincere the individual, no matter how thoroughly he believes that he’s right. Believing that one is right doesn’t MAKE one right, but that’s the only recourse the sola Scripturist has. “If I was wrong the holy Spirit would convict my heart”. Maybe. But then again, maybe not, since He’s not convicting the heart of the guy whose interpretation contradicts yours.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Franz]

I do have a question though…as far as the different versions of Mathews Gospel, where can I find information about this? Thanks.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

These things are clearly revealed in the N.T. Scriptures, especially Pauline, and need not be filtered through, or first interpreted by, any kind of mediatorial or ecclesiastical institution. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer.

Again, your argument would be much stronger if there wasn’t so much contradiction in belief among those who believe just what you stated above.

Yes, God has provided teachers in the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:11), but He does not assign to them the attribute of “infallibility.” For this reason James gives his warning in 3:1

Not that I’m an infallible interpreter of scripture (though you seem to be trying to convince me that I am), but I don’t believe that James 3:1 is a reference to papal infallibility. James’ warning seems about the difficulty that some have in holding their tongue, not in teaching error.

.I very well understand Rome’s teaching on “Papal infallibility.” However, there is no such things as the “office” of “Pope” revealed in the Scriptures (Eph. 4:11-12). And I’ve already gone through the error and impossibility of the idea of “Apostolic succession” (see my post #354). Someone on here tried to rationalize by saying that Rome’s Popes and Bishops didn’t succeed in the “office” of the Apostles, but only in the “authority” of that office. In other words, they themselves are not Apostles but operate in their authority. But you can’t have the authority of the office without the reality of it. That’s like telling someone that he has the power of the President but, oh by the way, we’ve terminated the office.

I have to very respectfully disagree with you based on personal experience. A year and a half ago my husband lost his job because they eliminated his position. His duties didn’t just disappear with his office. They were passed on to the guy below him who, while not holding the same position, continued the work. That’s exactly how it was with the bishops. Scripture said that Apostles had to be those who had actually seen the Lord (Paul excepted) so of course, as the Apostles died, so would their office. But certainly not the job. The leaders of the church were to be the “pillar (upholder) and bulwark (protector and defender) of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). The truth couldn’t possible be upheld, protected and defended over the centuries without divine guidance… Papal infallibility is nothing other than divine guidance in upholding, protecting and defending the truth.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Kinsman:

Exclusive authority, exclusive catholicity and exclusive interpretation of God’s Word are the exclusive boasts of the church of Rome. They are accepted by faith on the part of its devotees, not fact.

What is “exclusive catholicity”?

Why wouldn’t Christ’s Church KNOW that she was Christ’s Church with the ability to teach by God’s authority and thereby claim it? Your church doesn’t make this claim? If not, how can you be sure that your church actually IS teaching by God’s authority? Especially in light of the fact that your church is teaching something that contradicts what’s being taught at the church down the street?

I submit that you take on faith, not fact (every bit as much as you believe we do) that your preacher is preaching the truth.

**

P.S.

If you want future dialog, scrap the colored, bold type. Not easy to deal with when quoting. Is it really that important that you be seen and heard?

Sorry about that. I didn’t know it was bothersome. Someone else pointed that out to me. I need to use a color when I’m quoting something just so it’s easier for me to distinguish my text from the person I’m quoting while I’m typing. Does this work OK for you?

In Christ,
Nancy **

 

[BobCatholic]

Franz:

I do have a question though…as far as the different versions of Mathews Gospel, where can I find information about this? Thanks.

There’s a book called “Where we got the Bible” by Henry Graham. Highly recommended reading.

 

[Franz]

BobCatholic:

There’s a book called “Where we got the Bible” by Henry Graham. Highly recommended reading.

great, got a free download off the internet of this book, will read for sure

funny how no one has even attempted to answer the 4 questions posted here…

 

[RNRobert]

BobCatholic:

There’s a book called “Where we got the Bible” by Henry Graham. Highly recommended reading.

TAN Books publishes that book and another one of his entitled What Faith Really Means. It is an excellent book on the importance of the teaching authority of the Church and refutes the concept of salvation by “Belief in Jesus alone.”

 

[BobCatholic]

Franz:

great, got a free download off the internet of this book, will read for sure

funny how no one has even attempted to answer the 4 questions posted here…

I’m not surprised. No Sola Scripturist wants to admit they hold to extra-biblical traditions.

The infamous 4 questions (applied to the NT) and to the OT are not the only 8 things that are part of Protestant Extra-Biblical Tradition.

In fact, there are others. For example: Public revelation stopped at the death of the Last Apostle. Polygamy prohibited for non-bishops/non-deacons. Prohibiting Abortion as a valid interpretation for “thou shalt not kill” The “Holy Spirit” guides only individuals to the correct interpretation of scripture and not the Catholic Church’s Magisterium. The protestant interpretation of “until” in Matthew 1:25 as meaning “afterwards it changed” when that verse says nothing about afterwards.

Sola Scriptura cannot be practiced anyway. It is practiced as “Solo Ego” (only me)

Who determines if something is biblical? “I DO”
Who determines if something is NOT biblical? “I DO”
Who determines that the Catholic Church is wrong on [doctrine]? “I DO”
Who determines which interpretation is correct? “I DO”
Who claims to speak on behalf of the Bible? “I DO”
Who claims to infallibly interpret the Bible while denying their personal infallibility? “I DO”