Scripture Alone

[vox]

Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine. It is unscriptural.

As Fiosh has pointed out: Jesus founded a Church not a bible, that came later.

It is the Church that forms the canon of the Bible which we have today. Early Christians did not have the luxury of the use the Bible because it did not exist. The proponent of Sola Scriptura always overlook this important fact.

The Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, spiral bound, with an NIV or KJV stickers on them. The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). The Catholic Church formed the Bible.

The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. They were incredibly accurate. We have a modern discovery that is a testimony to how accurate the Monks were when they copied the Bible.

The "Dead Sea Scrolls" were discovered in 1947 and they date back to 200 BC. They contain Old Testament books such as Isaiah. They predate some of the Monk's copies by 1500 years. Yet the hand copied Bibles created by monks are almost identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is remarkable given that the Monks were working from copies of copies. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed.

Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association said:

"Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!"

Catholics believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. However, Catholics believe that the Bible itself teaches us that the Church came before the Bible. Jesus did not write any books of the Bible. Jesus chose NOT to write but rather to build his Church, and 30-60 years later He inspired the members of his Church to write down what they learned. Several hundred years after that, He inspired members of his Church to decide what books belong in the Bible. That Church is the Catholic Church and the Church teaches the Bible along with Tradition.

Early Christians didn't have a Bible. It wasn't written for at least a hundred years and the exact books to include were not formally decided upon until the 300's. So the tradition of the Church is important. The Bible itself claims that:

...there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that could be written. (Jn 21:25)

Tradition draws from the Apostles and the Church's collective wisdom as inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is derived from the Early Church Fathers, and revelations of the faithful. It enriches our understanding of the Bible.

In John 16:12 Jesus says "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth."

Proponents of Sola Scriptura always use:

"...the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training" (2 Timothy 3:15-16)

However, the passage simply says Scripture is inspired and useful. Catholics totally agree. Water is necessary for my existence but is it all I need? Most certainly not. Interestingly, there was no New Testament written back then so if this passage was saying Scripture is all we need, it would be saying that the New Testament wasn't necessary, which is obviously untrue.

Scripture says "And the Word became Flesh" (Jn1:1)

It doesn't say "and the Word became paper." God became Flesh, He instituted and commissioned his Church. Later Jesus inspired members of his Church to write, then He inspired members of the Church to discern which books to include in the Bible, and He inspired his Church to interpret it. This is what Catholics believe, and that is what all Christians believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Catholics believe that the "Bible alone" theory is not what the Bible teaches. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is the only authority. However, the Bible does say that Jesus founded his Church and gave it all authority. (Mat 16:18)

For instance the word Trinity is not in the Bible, but it is most certainly real. Again it is the Catholic Church which defines the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Why Catholics observe both Scriptures and Tradition:

"...hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (not only written) 2 Thes 2:15

"Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me." Not written but spoken. 2 Tim 1:13 ".

"I would rather not use pen and ink, but hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face." 2 John 12

"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." John 16:12

2 Tim 3:16 does not condemn tradition.

Mat 15 condemns the traditions of men not apostolic tradition.

There are many other things that Jesus did. . the whole world could not hold the books that could be written. Jn 21:25

I have sent my angel to announce these things to you in the churches. Rev 22:16

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

Acts 8:14 . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .

1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.

Jude 3 . . . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

[vox]

The problem Catholics have is that your tradition contradicts certain aspects of scripture, therefore you have to choose which one is more powerful and more important.

Please substantiate your allegation. But before you do please read my post above. Catholics hold both scripture and tradition of equal importance. We do not have to choose as you erroneously claim, because both compliment and support the other. But I would be interested to know the contradiction you mention.

And before you come back with the pre-written reply that you learned in confirmation, tradition did not form scripture.

No Catholics have ever said tradition forms scripture, and it is never part of the teaching of the Church. Perhaps you can explain and provide some sort of evidence to this?

[apothanein kerdos]

apothanein kerdos said,

Aall sola scriptura, as the reformers taught it, means

is that the Bible is the final authority on all things.

Very well - where does the Bible say this?

It's scriptural logic. Sola Scriptura does not teach that everything has to be "word for word" in the Bible. So long as the concept is taught or it can be drawn from with analysis, it is okay. The plagarized article that Vox provided us shows that the Catholic Church has utterly no idea what Sola Scriptura is. The word "trinity" is used to show that sola scriptura cannot possibly work. However, as I said, the concept is given.

As for scriptural analysis, either the Bible is the Word of God or it isn't. If it is the word of God then it is the absolute final authority on everything. Even the early Church Fathers taught this. Either Scripture is the final authority or tradition is; they cannot be equal because both stand at odds at times. Tradition, when supported by the Bible, is holy and should be followed. When the Bible is silent on such things, then tradition is up to the individual. When the Bible is against the concept, the Bible should be the final authority. If you deny that the Bible is the final authority then you must inherently deny its inspiration.

But before you do please read my post above.

No, I don't want a thing to do with you. You're a liar, you lack honor, and you have no business in this debate. You're a plagarizer.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

C'mon now, why should I even acknowledge you if you're going to do that?

[Leonard]

Vox: You seem to confuse the 'Catholic Church' with the 'catholic Church.' Are you claiming the Roman Church is the one which authorized the 27 book canon of the New Testament?

From a purely historical perspective, we really don't have anything like a "Roman Catholic Church" until about 7th or 8th century. The Canon was certainly set well before that! Not that the Roman Bishops didn't have any influence on the matter, of course. These were truly 'ecumenical' councils, which we have not been able to have now for lo, these many centuries. But let's not just say 'Catholic Church' if we really mean 'catholic Church' or 'Roman Catholic Church.'

[Smalcald]

Well I agree with much of what Vox was saying. I just come to a different conclusion on authority and that is what scripture alone as the reformers framed the term is about. But the reformers were not the first to question the spiritual authority of the Bishop of Rome; the Eastern Church split over the issue much earlier. It has been on on-going issue within Christianity for at least a thousand years.

The danger of relying on a human being to bring us new revelation outside of God's Word, is that indeed it will eventually contradict scripture and contradict some basic elements of the original faith. For example "discovering" through revelation in 1950 that Mary ascended to heaven and did not die, and that this doctrine is equal to what is shown in scripture is very problematic, why not listen to what Joseph Smith came up with? We don't see the office's which claim to hold this authority which is equal to scripture exhibiting the fruits of what one would expect for someone supposedly sitting in Peter's seat, and further sitting in the seat of Christ.

I see sinful human beings no better nor worse than any other Christian denominations leaders. I see a very human and thus sinful hierarchical organization neither better nor any worse than any other Christian denomination. Surely if there were only one true ordained Church of God acting as a human institution, it would not act the way we have seen the Roman Catholic Hierarchy act in the past twenty or thirty years, particularly in the US. These are often good men, good Christian leaders, witness the last Pope a true example to the world of living a Christian life, I think God for him. But to say this human hierarchy sits for Christ on earth is a major major problem, they are men and the hierarchy is just that a hierarchy doing some good, doing some evil and this is obvious from their actions.

[EricH]

Where in Scripture is this Protestant tenet?

The reason that I believe that we must go by scripture alone is the simple matter that I believe it to be God's Word. 2 Timothy 3:16,17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice it doesn't say "all the writings of the church fathers" or "all the writings in the Christian tradition." It says "all scripture." Many of the other writings are contradictory to the Bible. If we gave equal weight to the numerous extra-Biblical writings that exist, we would be in utter confusion.

You mentioned this being a "Protestant tenet." This is the reason why we don't accept many of the things the Catholic Church teaches. Many of their teachings are based on additional manuscripts as well as traditions. Since many of these things contradict the scriptures we reject them.

Hi there Butero,

I beg to differ. The RCC teaches NOTHING that contradicts Scripture. What varies is our interpretation of Scripture. For ex. I doubt we'd agree on the meaning of "This is my Body".

But then, this saying IS hard.

Peace,

Fiosh

Actually it does. The veneration of Mary is anti-scriptural as is equating the traditions of men with the commandments of God

Actually it doesn't. We do not worship Mary; we honor her. There is nothing anti-scriptural about honoring the mother of Jesus. I'm sure Jesus honored her, since He followed the Commandments ( Honor thy father and thy mother). And we are to be imitators of Christ..

Actually....The Bible commands us to hold fast to oral traditions. 2 Thess 2:15

Except that you address prayers to her, and believe that she holds some sort of intercessory function that the Bible itself does not teach. The command to hold fast to oral traditions in 2 Thess 2:15 was a reference to the oral traditions passed down by the apostles themselves which have now been encoded in scripture

Here are some additional teachings as I understand them and from the sources I have available to me that are either a-biblical or anti-biblical

1. That she functions as "Co-redemptrix" in some fashion

2. That she is the Queen of Heaven and Queen of the World (Pope Pius XII)

3. That she suffered with Christ and through that suffering participated in the redemption of the human race (Pope Pius XI)

and Pope Benedict XV)

4. Mary is a mediatrix in the distribution of grace.

5. Mary was assumed both body and soul into heaven.

6. Mary was preserved from all sinful desire as well as from all personal sin.

7. Mary was a virgin before, during and after His (Jesus') birth.

[EricH]

sw says:

chrismarc, I am not trying to hijack your thread. In the context of Scripture Alone, the Roman Catholic denial of that concept is largely based on the authority of the office of the Pope. By proving that no such office exists in and from Scripture, I hope to begin to establish that God's Word, and not the church and pope, is the final authority. I think that is reasonable but would welcome a ruling from a moderator if it is not.

The denial of this concept is based on Scripture which

tell us the Word of God is both written and oral (Tradition).

You are attemptiing to deflect into another Protest-ant

denial of Church teaching. It would be best handled in a

separate thread, but i am not a moderator on this list.

Actually it is based on a misunderstanding and misapplication of the scriptures. The traditions the Apostles spoke of were thier own oral traditions which had not yet ben encoded in scripture. They now have been. Additional tradtional layers added later by the Roman Catholic church are not a part of those traditions

[EricH]

apothanein kerdos said,

Aall sola scriptura, as the reformers taught it, means

is that the Bible is the final authority on all things.

Very well - where does the Bible say this?

There have been several who have provided texts in this thread. You have not replied to those. Why should we continue to provide scriptures if you are unwilling or unable to respond to the ones we have provided

[chrismarc]

Butero said,

The reason that I believe that we must go by scripture alone is the simple matter that I believe it to be God's Word. 2 Timothy 3:16,17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

John Henry Newman refutes this in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation

to Revelation." He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument

whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for,

although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be

sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover,

the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the

Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books

of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers,

then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage

proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the NT were not

necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read

in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul

[EricH]

John Henry Newman refutes this in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation

to Revelation." He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument

whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for,

although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be

sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover,

the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

John Newman does not carry with him the authority of scripture. This is one of the issues I have with Catholic apologists. They cannot arrive at their own conclusions. They need to have others interact with the word of God for them, and they frequently treat quotes from their own theologians as if they are on an equal plane with what scripture actually says. Newman is misapplying that verse (as we have stated in the past when you referenced it). The traditions being spoken of there are the oral traditions of the apostles (of which we have many examples in copies we have of hymns that were sung at the time) which were later codified as scripture. The Roman Catholic church has taken this passage and tried to apply it to traditions they have developed over time that do not find their origins in the writings of the Apostles, who had the authority to write scripture.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the

Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books

of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers,

then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage

proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the NT were not

necessary for a rule of faith."

This again is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the sufficieny of scripture. Timothy had the OT scriptures available in His youth. The doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture states that the scriptures contained all of the information required for a person living at a particular stage in redemptive history to relate to God properly. At the stage Timothy lived, the Apostles were still living. They had the very words of the Apostles to guide them. We know that the 4 gospels were circulating very early and were accepted as the word of God before the death of the last apostle. So the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels were circulating very early. In addition all of the letters of the Apostles were completed before they died. Since God was sovereign over the timing of the codification of the NT scriptures, we can rest assured that everything a person needed to know was either encoded in scripture, or in the mouths of the Apostles themselves when they lived. The same was true during the OT times. Depending on when a person lived they had portions of the OT codified, but they also had prophets living at the time that spoke the actual words of God which were later codified (for example Baruch writing the words of Jeremiah). Your objection just does not carry any weight from an historical perspective. All the canonlical councils did was recognize writings that were already functioning as canon in the life of the church, in a formal way.

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read

in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul