Doc110 Loc: York PA

03/27/2018 Is Sola Scriptura Historical ? (Part 1)

Part I: Going “Deep in History” with Cardinal Newman

Ken Hensley
https://chnetwork.org/2018/03/27/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-i-going-deep-in-history-with-cardinal-newman/

For more of Ken Hensley’s thoughts on sola Scriptura, read his series Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural?
https://chnetwork.org/2018/02/06/im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural/


I became curious about Catholicism when I learned that one of the brightest students I had ever met in seminary had become Catholic.

Being a curious sort, I began to read books on Catholic theology and apologetics, as well as the stories of converts to the Catholic Faith.

Why in the world, I wondered, would someone who was Protestant become Catholic?

What exactly would his reasoning be?


Enter John Henry Newman

It wasn’t long before I ran into the works of probably the most famous convert to Catholicism of the 19th century, the great Anglican thinker, theologian, and preacher, John Henry Newman.

I read his conversion story Apologia pro Vita Sua and, thoroughly impressed by his brilliance, launched right away into his classic Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 

I had only made my way to page seven when I found myself reading the following extremely provocative words:

History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. 

Bold outlines and broad masses of color rise out of the records of the past.

They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite.

And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. 

In nearly two decades as a Christian, I don’t believe I’d ever heard anyone say such a thing.

Hmm, quite the bold assertion, I thought.

I tucked Newman’s words away, curious as to how he would substantiate them in succeeding chapters, flipped to page eight and immediately ran into this succinct statement:

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

I was nearly choking. What?

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant?

Talk about bold assertions!

Who does this Newman fellow think he is making such outrageous claims?

I continued reading.

This utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether … regarded in its early or in its later centuries ….

So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial.


At this point my mind was moving pretty quickly.

Have I heard Newman clearly?

Is he actually saying that if the systems of doctrine held by any Baptist or Presbyterian or Lutheran or Non-Denominational Evangelical Church existed in the early centuries of Christian history, the evidence of their existence has been “clean swept away as if by a deluge”?

Is he saying there’s no evidence of such churches ever existing?

And then, one page later:

That Protestantism, then, is not the Christianity of history, it is easy to determine.

Wow!
Not only is Protestantism not the Christianity of history; it’s easy to determine that Protestantism is not the Christianity of history!

Here I was, a typical evangelical Protestant, who really hadn’t spent much time wrestling with the question of what Christians believed in the second, third, fourth and fifth centuries of Christian history.

I had graduated from a well-known Protestant seminary.

I had been ordained into the Protestant ministry and was about eight years into my career as a Protestant pastor.

And here was one of the most brilliant Christian minds of the 19th century telling me that, if the kind of church I was leading, in terms of its system of doctrine, had ever existed in the earliest centuries of Christianity, its existence had disappeared from the historical record, leaving no trace.

Newman was throwing down the gauntlet. He was making claims that, if true, would be really hard to ignore. It was these statements by John Henry Newman that rattled my Protestant bones and forced me for the first time to look seriously at the early Church.

The Question of History:

Now, as a Protestant, naturally sola Scriptura was the foundation of my worldview.

I took inspired Scripture alone to be “Capital-A Authoritative” when it came to determining Christian doctrine and morals.

The opinions of Bible scholars and theologians, even the solemn formulations of Church councils, creeds and denominational statements of faith — these functioned for me as guides and counselors. I respected them.

But none of them possessed “Authority” in the sense that I would need to accept their ruling as true and bow to it, even if I thought the Bible was teaching something else.

No.

When it came to Christian faith and practice, as far as I was concerned, the quest for “truth” amounted to the quest to rightly interpret inspired Scripture and organize its teaching into a coherent system of Christian doctrine.

And with this fundamental view of things, while I might have been curious as to what the Church of the early centuries of Christian history believed, I wasn’t all that curious.

Men like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus — I was familiar with their names.

I knew they were heroes of the faith, many of them martyrs.

But as for what they believed in terms of Christian doctrine?

I didn’t think of this as something that would necessarily cast much light on the issues of New Testament interpretation, and therefore what I ought to believe.

After all, if they agreed with what I took to be the most accurate reading of Scripture, I would say they were wise and faithful interpreters of God’s Word.

If they disagreed with me, I would say they had drifted from the truth. 

I knew for sure that by the time of the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, Christianity had pretty much twisted itself into the strange shape we call the Catholic religion.

So why, exactly, should I trust anything said between the time of the Apostles and the time of Constantine?

My working assumption was that the teaching of the Apostles had become corrupted in the second, third and fourth centuries,

And therefore, the beliefs and practices of Christians in those early centuries didn’t necessarily tell us what the Apostles actually taught, or what their disciples — the first Christians — believed.

Newman challenged that basic assumption.

He argued that it’s more natural to think that “the society of Christians which the Apostles left on earth were of that religion to which the Apostles converted them”
(page 5),

(End Part 1)

For more of Ken Hensley’s thoughts on sola Scriptura, read his series Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural?
https://chnetwork.org/2018/02/06/im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural/

This is part of an ongoing series by Ken Hensley. Read Part II: Three Simple Observations
https://chnetwork.org/2018/04/10/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-ii-three-simple-observations/

bahmer

Oh goody you have found something different for Radiance3 to post she was getting rather boring posting the same diatribe day after day and never changing one iota. I can now look forward to reading this as she posts it daily in her rebuke to all of us protestants.

Rose42

Is Sola Sriptura scriptural? Why of course it is.

Don't you find it fascinating that Sola Scriptura can be proven with scripture itself and can be done so with numerous self-explanatory verses and an economy of words? The Catholic denial contains a high word count with no substance.

bahmer

Amen and Amen I will go along with the protestants version over the Roman Catholic Churches version every day of the week. Thanks Rose42 for your description it is precise and to the point.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Rose42,

So prove it biblicaly and Protestant scripturally.

All you do is play the straw-man fallacy idiom.

10 Logical Fallacies You Should Know and How to Spot Them


1. The Ad Hominem. Let's start with probably one of the most common offenders. ... Also called ‘poisoning the well’ or the ‘personal attack’ or Ad Hominem called ‘Guilt by Association’

2. The Appeal to Authority. ... a ‘so-called’ authority said so rather than applying any logical reasoning or providing any evidence to support the claim.


3. The Straw Man. ... With this fallacy, you argue against a phoney, weak or ridiculous position that you have created, and then proceed to easily knock it down.


4. The Appeal to Ignorance. ... using the premise that since we do not know (or cannot prove) something that it must be either true or false. Which if you think about it is completely ridiculous as not knowing something isn’t proof of anything, well, other than you don’t know something!


5. The False Dilemma. ... This is also sometimes known as the False Dichotomy, the Black and White Fallacy, or even the Bi-Furcation Fallacy. This is how it works: Essentially you reduce an argument down to only two options despite the fact that there may be many more (and far better possibilities) to choose from e.g. ‘You’re either with us or against us’


6. The Slippery Slope aka, The Domino Theory. ... This fallacy works by taking an argument from a sensible moderate place and moving it to an extreme place via a one thing leads to another kind of route regardless of any logic or rational evidence to support the claim.


7. The Circular Argument (Petitio Principii or Begging the Question) ... The Vicious Circle. It is called this for a very good reason because it works by repeating what has just been said which, hey presto, creates a completely closed loop aka a circle !


8. The Alphabet Soup. ... This is the over use of acronyms, abbreviations and occulted language to bamboozle people into thinking that they know what they are talking about and therefore must be right (and you are wrong and ignorant to boot).

Sad to say the well-being industry is rife with this sort of hogwash often used to impress and confuse poor saps into taking a dubious course of treatment often at great expense to their body and wallet – allegedly.


9. The Bandwagon. ... The bandwagon fallacy works on the basis that something is correct, good, true, right or whatever the heck you want it to be just because most people think it is as well.

Named after the horse-drawn cart that politicians used to travel around on shouting their dubious election promises and drawing attention to themselves so that people would give them their support and vote for them.

If you were dumb enough to be one of them, you could literally jump on the bandwagon and enjoy being taken for a ride!

10. The Red Herring. ... Change the subject, Well, the red herring is a clever irrelevant argument that distracts you from the real topic being scrutinized.


Apparently named after the smelly fish used when training hunting dogs, it is most frequently employed by crafty individuals who want to lead the conversation

(read; argument) away from an area that they are vulnerable into one that they feel is a safer territory.


11. Religious correctness, Political Correctness (special bonus fallacy)

the ‘PC argument’ (aka Language Control).

We are all for equality and fairness, but please bear with us on this one. This post-modern day piece of fallacious sophistry used to have another name. Ironically it was once simply known as the Name Calling Fallacy.

How it works is you change the nature of something by giving it another name. You must have seen the sort of thing on the news or in the papers all the time.

People are no longer ‘poor’ but ‘economically disadvantaged’, they are not ‘broke’ but ‘have a temporary negative cash flow situation’, and of course they no longer live in ‘slums’ but in ‘economically depressed urban environments’.

https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logical-fallacies-know-spot/

Rose42

Already done numerous times Doc and by multiple people. It can even be done with the Catholic version of the Bible because it has the same verses.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

balmer,

The Protestant schoolboy cheerleader, The blind leading the blind.

05/01/2018 Is Sola Scriptura Historical? Part III: Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church

Ken Hensley



This is Part III of an ongoing series by Ken Hensley.

Part I, and Part II


In this part of our series on sola Scriptura, we’re looking at the question of history. Previously, I presented three observations that made it increasingly hard for me, still a Protestant, to believe that Christians living in the decades and centuries immediately following the death of the Apostles were thinking in terms of sola Scriptura.

I could find no hint in the writings of the Apostles that Christians living in the post-apostolic period should be thinking in terms of sola Scriptura.

It seemed strange to me that something so foundational would not be mentioned anywhere.

The fact that the Church took several centuries to formally define the canon of Scripture argued against the notion that Christians, during those centuries, were looking to the Bible as their sole infallible rule for all doctrine and morals.

The fact that the earliest Christian creeds, while containing statements of belief in the Holy Spirit and in the “Holy Catholic Church,” say nothing at all about Scripture, seemed to me to give evidence of a more Catholic conception of how the apostolic teaching would be preserved within the Church.

If sola Scriptura was to be the rule of faith and practice for the early Church, why did the Apostles, who while they were living provided a living authority, not talk about this? Why did they do nothing to prepare their people for such a fundamental shift?

Why would the bishops of the early Church allow decades and centuries to pass before nailing down exactly which books were to be considered inspired and included in the Christian’s Bible?


Why would the foundational role of Scripture not be mentioned in the early creeds of the Church?

None of this made sense to me.

Understand, I didn’t consider these three observations as unassailable “proofs” that the early Church was not Protestant.

I did, however, consider them as “evidences” of a mindset within early Christianity that simply did not fit the mindset I had been trained to have as an evangelical Protestant.

But what about the actual practice of Christians living in those earliest centuries following the Apostles?

Did the early Church Fathers teach and practice sola Scriptura? What do they say about these issues of Scripture and Tradition?


Sacred Scripture

Of course, Protestant apologists insist that the early Church was committed to sola Scriptura.

To demonstrate this they quote passages from the writings of the early Fathers that speak of the authority of Scripture and how all true Christian teaching must conform to Scripture and be supported by Scripture.

Probably the most often quoted is the following passage from the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, written c. ad 250.

For concerning the divine and Holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.

Even to me who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things, which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.

For this salvation, which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Now, if this were the only thing the early Church Fathers had to say about the issue, I would agree that it seemed to imply that Scripture should function as the Church’s sole infallible rule.

But it’s not.

We also find passages like the following from Origen in the preface to his Fundamental Doctrines.
c. ad 225

The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the churches even to the present time.

That alone is to be believed as the truth, which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.



While the statement of Cyril sounds like something a Protestant might say, the statement of Origen sounds like something a Protestant would never say.

How would one reconcile the two?

As a Protestant, I would have said that that Origen is placing too much authority in the hands of the Church, and that, ultimately, “ecclesiastical tradition” has little authority.

What matters is what the Bible says!

But the Catholic theologians I was reading harmonized the two statements.

First, they emphasized that Catholics agree with Protestants that only Scripture is divinely inspired, that it must hold the place of primacy in the Church’s structure of authority, that nothing can be taught as divinely revealed that contradicts Scripture or that cannot be supported by Scripture.

But isn’t this essentially a statement of belief in sola Scriptura?

It would be, except that they went on to make a second point:

While Scripture is authoritative and, alone, divinely inspired, it has to be interpreted.

Someone has to assemble all the various passages dealing with whatever issue is being considered, interpret them within their literary and historical contexts, make sense of how they all fit together and draw conclusions as to what exactly is being taught.


As helpful as it might be, the Bible doesn’t just leap up and announce to us:

“Here is the correct doctrine of Christ, and of the Church, and of Salvation, and of the Sacraments !”

If it did, there would not be so many Protestant Christian sects and denominations.

Rather, the inspired Scriptures have to be interpreted.

And because of this, while we find the Church Fathers speaking eloquently of the inspiration and authority and, as in the quotation from Cyril, even what Catholics refer to as the primacy of Sacred Scripture, we also find them speaking of the authority of Tradition as the lens through which Scripture must be read and properly interpreted.


Sacred Tradition

For instance, here’s St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and the greatest biblical theologian of the second century, writing around AD 189:

When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth, which is easily obtained from the Church.

For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth;

And everyone whoever wishes draws from her the drink of life .… What, then?

If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question?

What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us?

Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches ?
Against Heresies 3:4:1

When I first read the Fathers and began to run into these sorts of passages, I recognized immediately that I was being exposed to a mindset that was very different from what I knew as an Evangelical Protestant.

At minimum, this was obvious.

I was a Protestant pastor, and I knew that if I had preached a million sermons over the course of a million Sundays,

I would never have thought to speak as St. Irenaeus here speaks.

I would never have thought to describe the truth as something the Apostles deposited in the Church like a rich man deposits his money in a bank.

I would have said they deposited the truth in the writings of the New Testament.

Period.

I would never have said that “everything which pertains to the truth” could be found in the Church and drawn from the Church.

I would never, ever have implied that even if the Apostles had left us no writings, Christians could know the truth in “the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom [the Apostles] entrusted the churches.”

No way on earth!

Least of all would my congregation ever have heard this preacher utter words such as these:

“If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question?”

And yet, this is what Irenaeus said.

In fact, I discovered fairly quickly that this is the sort of thing all the Church Fathers said.


Their words began to haunt me.

The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and es even to the present time.

That alone is to be believed as the truth, which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (Origen).

Moreover, if there be any (heresies) bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them:

Let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles….

Then let all the heresies … offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heresies 32, c. ad 200).


As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house.

She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth.

For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the Tradition is one and the same .
Irenaeus, Against Heresies I:10:2

There was no way for me to escape this reality:

The early Church Fathers did not speak about Tradition and its relationship to Scripture in ways even close to how Protestants speak of these things.

Their way of thinking and speaking revealed a mindset very different from the mindset I had been steeped in for twenty years as an Evangelical, the mindset of every Evangelical I had ever known.


At the same time, I had to admit that the mindset of the Fathers was like the mindset of the Catholic documents I was reading.

Reading the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation from Vatican II, I could see that the Catholic Church spoke like the Fathers spoke.

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God, which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.


Conclusion

I had come to believe that the New Testament simply didn’t teach sola Scriptura.


Now I was coming to believe that sola Scriptura had not been the faith of the early Church.

More and more, it appeared that John Henry Newman had been right when he said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

But there was more to come.


Up Next: Is Sola Scriptura Historical? Part IV
https://chnetwork.org/2018/05/15/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-iv-sola-scriptura-and-heresy/

bahmer

As in anything if one digs deep enough and long enough he or she will eventually find the writings that they are looking for that will explain whatever they want them to explain either for or against a set of values. Sorrt no prize for you.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Rose42,

This pod cast explains a lot how being Protestant how they put-down, Catholics in a snide remark, presumption of the word of God.

Listen to Marcus Grodi, The Coming Home network with Father, Skip Thompson.
https://chnetwork.org/deep-in-scripture/john-24-and-christs-words-to-his-mother-fr-skip-thompson/


In the story of Jesus’ first miracle at the Wedding of Cana, many Catholics focus on Mary’s words to the servants there, “do whatever he tells you,” as a model for Christian piety and action.

On today’s episode, however, Fr. Skip Thompson, a convert to the Catholic faith, focuses on the words of Our Lord to His Mother in that exchange:

“O woman, what have you to do with me?

My hour has not yet come.”
John 2:3-5

Is this merely a rebuke of Mary?

Or is there a lot more to this passage, beginning with the fact that Jesus refers to his mother as “woman” rather than “mother ?”

Sola-Scriptura, that the Bible verses speak for themselves, and the literal and context of the written bible.

A Rebellious Son
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,
19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.
20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.”
21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Deutrormony 21:18-21

John 2:3-5 and Christ’s Words to His Mother – Fr. Skip Thompson
https://chnetwork.org/deep-in-scripture/john-24-and-christs-words-to-his-mother-fr-skip-thompson/



How lets discuss Sola Scriptura and successive articles 1-4

Please do some reading before responding about Sola Scriptura

1. Is Sola Scriptura Historical ?
Part I: Going “Deep in History” with Cardinal Newman
https://chnetwork.org/2018/03/27/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-i-going-deep-in-history-with-cardinal-newman/

2. Is Sola Scriptura Historical ?
Part II: Three Simple Observations
https://chnetwork.org/2018/04/10/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-ii-three-simple-observations/

3. Is Sola Scriptura Historical ?
Part III: Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church
https://chnetwork.org/2018/05/01/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-iii-scripture-and-tradition-in-the-early-church/

4. Is Sola Scriptura Historical ?
Part IV: Sola Scriptura and Heresy
https://chnetwork.org/2018/05/15/is-sola-scriptura-historical-part-iv-sola-scriptura-and-heresy/


Another series on Sola Scriptura . . .


1. Introduction, Is Sola Scriptura True ?
Slip Sliding Away
https://chnetwork.org/2018/02/01/im-catholic-slip-sliding-away-part/

2. Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural ?
Part I: New Testament Practice
https://chnetwork.org/2018/02/06/im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural/

3. Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural ?
Part II: What Do The Apostles Say ?
https://chnetwork.org/2018/02/20/sola-scriptura-scriptural-part-ii-apostles-say/

4. Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural ?
Part III: Circular Reasoning
https://chnetwork.org/2018/02/27/sola-scriptura-scriptural-part-iii-circular-reasoning/

5. Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural ?
Part IV: Why do Protestants Embrace it ?
https://chnetwork.org/2018/03/13/sola-scriptura-scriptural-part-iv-protestants-embrace/

Doc110

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Balmer,

You just made my exact contextual point, about Sola Scriptura, the Bible only.

Yet you never read and respond to ant of my postings articles,

You play the Straw-Man, a Man-Made doctrines theological relativism ? and their churches traditions . . . of the Protestant reformation.

To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant.
John Henry Newman

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Balmer,

Oh, The school-boy protestant cheerleading bully is back, but "You" can't read, comprehend or respond to any of the articles subject.

You have turned into a OPP religious post "Internet Troll."

You brought this Catholic consternation upon yourself, with your hypocritical Protestant rhetoric compost.

So how is your mindless and shallow Protestant anger, insults and bigotry working out for you . . . . ?


Balmer, So is Sola Scriptura Biblically Historical ?


Answer the question you don't get any passes this time, or then you are a protestant coward on the OPP religious forum.

And the readers will know of your deceit, undermining disingenuous Protestant prejudicial attitudes and bigoted behavior towards Catholics and the Catholic Church.



So, put on you're thinking hat on and use your God given writings skills, to add factual historical information to the religious post thread.


Or continue to be the "Sycophant Protestant lap-dog" boy cheerleader . . . .


"To be deep in History, is to cease to be Protestant."
Cardinal John Henry Newman, former Anglican Convert.


Why don't you provide Protestant man-Made historical information on Martin Luther Biblical and his self-Interpretation on Christian historical doctrine.


Instead of playing the Straw-Man foot-licking "Sycophant Protestant lap-dog" of the 5 horse-men and Horse-women of the Protestant Apocalypse.


Doc110

bahmer

I see that you have your pleasantries and flattery as usual in your attempt to persuade those of us non Roman Catholic to turn around and join your pagan church and join your pagan cult. But even though you flatter me I will at this time refuse your offer to join your cult of pagan worshipers and stay the course on which I am set. May you have a great day in your pagan holidays and worshiping your pagan statues and various cloths that you and you cult worship and don't forget your rosary beads that were forbidden in the second commandment which your cult removed from the scriptures there Doc110 may you Radiance3 and padremike have a wonderful day.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Doc110 is a dishonest Bold Face LIAR.

As convincing as these arguments may seem to a devout Catholic, they are devoid of substance. As we will see, each of the Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura fails, and they are unable to provide any substantial basis for the Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition.

Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture. Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not. Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6). It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy. Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).11 This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically. Of course, none of these are a prohibition on future revelations. But they do apply to the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there are any authoritative normative revelations outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. And this is precisely what these texts say. Indeed, even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him. For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God’s revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word. Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation. Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament. While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that “admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.” Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.12 Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible. It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.

Sola Scriptura: All Apostolic “Traditions” Are in the Bible

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired. The fact that apostles sometimes referred to “traditions” they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to “maintain” them (1 Cor. 11:2) and “stand fast in them” (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired” or “unbreakable” or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture. The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible. Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra (“from the seat” of Peter) ones. Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books. Indeed, it is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found. So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church. This leads to another important point. The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). Furthermore, “Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them… which he recorded in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses’ (cf. Josh. 1:7). Likewise, “Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to “take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness” (30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

Sola Scriptura: The Bible Does Not State a Preference for Oral Tradition

The Catholic use of 3 John to prove the superiority of oral tradition is a classic example of taking a text out of context. John is not comparing oral and written tradition about the past but a written, as opposed to a personal, communication in the present. Notice carefully what he said: “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). Who would not prefer a face-to-face talk with a living apostle over a letter from him? But that is not what oral tradition gives. Rather, it provides an unreliable oral tradition as opposed to an infallible written one. Sola Scriptura contends the latter is preferable.

Sola Scriptura: The Bible Is Clear Apart from Tradition

The Bible has perspicuity apart from any traditions to help us understand it. As stated above, and contrary to a rather wide misunderstanding by Catholics, perspicuity does not mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear but that the main message is clear. That is, all doctrines essential for salvation and living according to the will of God are sufficiently clear. Indeed, to assume that oral traditions of the apostles, not written in the Bible, are necessary to interpret what is written in the Bible under inspiration is to argue that the uninspired is more clear than the inspired. But it is utterly presumptuous to assert that what fallible human beings pronounce is clearer than what the infallible Word of God declares. Further, it is unreasonable to insist that words of the apostles that were not written down are more clear than the ones they did write. We all know from experience that this is not so.

Sola Scriptura: Tradition and Scripture Are Not Inseparable

Kreeft’s claim that Scripture and apostolic tradition are inseparable is unconvincing. Even his illustration of the horse (Scripture) and the rider (tradition) would suggest that Scripture and apostolic tradition are separable. Further, even if it is granted that tradition is necessary, the Catholic inference that it has to be infallible tradition — indeed, the infallible tradition of the church of Rome — is unfounded. Protestants, who believe in sola Scriptura, accept genuine tradition; they simply do not believe it is infallible. Finally, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that the Bible was produced by the Roman Catholic church. As we will see in the next point, this is not the case.

Sola Scriptura: The Principle of Causality Is Not Violated

http://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

 

CONTINUATION.....


Sola Scriptura: The Principle of Causality Is Not Violated

Kreeft’s argument that sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality is invalid for one fundamental reason: it is based on a false assumption. He wrongly assumes, unwittingly in contrast to what Vatican II and even Vatican I say about the canon,13 that the church determined the canon. In fact, God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. This being the case, Kreeft’s argument that the cause must be equal to its effect (or greater) fails.

Sola Scriptura: Rejection of Tradition Does Not Necessitate Scandal

Kreeft’s claim that the rejection of the Roman Catholic view on infallible tradition leads to the scandal of denominationalism does not follow for many reasons. First, this wrongly implies that all denominationalism is scandalous. Not necessarily so, as long as the denominations do not deny the essential doctrines of the Christian church and true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity. Nor can one argue successfully that unbelievers are unable to see spiritual unity. For Jesus declared: “This is how all [men] will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Second, as orthodox Catholics know well, the scandal of liberalism is as great inside the Catholic church as it is outside of it. When Catholic apologists claim there is significantly more doctrinal agreement among Catholics than Protestants, they must mean between orthodox Catholics and all Protestants (orthodox and unorthodox) — which, of course, is not a fair comparison. Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants. When, however, we compare the differences with orthodox Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Catholicism. This fact negates the value of the alleged infallible teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. In point of fact, Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines with only an infallible Bible and no infallible interpreters of it! Third, orthodox Protestant “denominations,” though there be many, have not historically differed much more significantly than have the various “orders” of the Roman Catholic church. Orthodox Protestants’ differences are largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines. So this Catholic argument against Protestantism is self-condemning. Fourth, as J. I. Packer noted, “the real deep divisions have been caused not by those who maintained sola Scriptura, but by those, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, who reject it.” Further, “when adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism….”14 Certainly this is often the case. A bad hermeneutic (method of interpreting Scripture) is more crucial to deviation from orthodoxy than is the rejection of an infallible tradition in the Roman Catholic church.

Sola Scriptura: First Century Christians Had Scripture and Living Apostles

Kreeft’s argument that the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the church to teach them, overlooks several basic facts. First, the essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6). Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available. And it was — in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament. Third, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that there was apostolic succession (see Part Four, next issue). The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.

There are those even on this forum that cut and paste many Catholic false doctrine and when confronted with their knowing lies, their reply never defies the proof against their lies. They can only call out cursing anyone that bares factual proof, they repeatedly will post and then block to prevent further revealing of their lies. One only need examine the Empirical evidence to see they are a fake and a fraud, a tool for Satan.

bahmer

Excellent rebuttal Jack thank you for that. Amen and Amen.