Know the truth about sola scriptura and Catholicism

[Chookna]

Originally from the 1994, copy of Crying in the Wilderness Newsletter (a Roman Catholic Quarterly Produced by the Benedictine Monks of Most Holy Family Monastery). This newsletter contained an article entitled, "Answers to 25 Questions on the History of the New Testament which completely refute the Protestant’s ‘Bible Only Theory’". (This article, in turn, was taken from the book, The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible). "Former Catholics For Christ" have decided to use this issue to answer each of their 25 questions and comments.
ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE​

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH COMPLETELY REFUTE THE "BIBLE ONLY" THEORY
ONE
Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world (Mat. 28-20).
COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.
FCFC’S ANSWER ("Former Catholics For Christ"): There are a total of twelve occurrences where Jesus commanded John to "write". In Rev.1:11, we read: "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, WRITE IN A BOOK, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia...." (Emphasis mine) (also Rev.1:19; 2:1,12, and 18; 3:1, 7, 12 and 14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5) The Apostle Paul also says: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that THE THINGS THAT I WRITE UNTO YOU ARE THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD." (1Cor.14:37) (Emphasis mine) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim.3:16) and God has magnified His word above His name. (Psa.138:2)
FCFC’S COMMENT: In their answer, they keep saying the Lord promised "them" (the apostles), as though the promises were not for all of us. He promises us that He will never leave us. The Lord Jesus not only commanded His apostles to write, but also provided the necessary means to fulfill His command in 2 Tim.2:15 to:
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
If the Lord had not provided the means, what good would it have been to command us to "study"? Isaiah 34:16 also promises us that those who "Seek ye out of the book of the Lord and read" shall not "fail". Again, did God make a command and then not provide the means to carry out that command? The answer is no! One more comment, in the Roman Catholic answer, they kept saying that Jesus promised "them" (the apostles), but the promises of the Holy Spirit are not limited to a few elite, the promises are to all who call upon the name of the Lord.

 

[Chookna]

TWO
How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.
COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.
FCFC’s ANSWER: Not all the disciples were commanded to write, but they all preached the same gospel of grace which was already contained in the Old Testament and by which others could test their doctrine to see if they were truly followers of His word. Jesus taught them from the Old Testament: "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27) so the apostles taught in this manner: "NONE OTHER THINGS than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come" (Acts 26:22) (Emphasis mine)
FCFC'S COMMENT: I don’t think accusing the apostles of being "derelict in their duty" if they did not write is a correct assumption, besides, we fail to see how this affects the "Bible-only" theory. Their premise has now gone from "Bible-only" to "Bible-only privately interpreted. Christians do not teach private interpretation.

 

[Chookna]

I won't post all of this at once as it is quite a lot of information , so I will post it gradually. I believe it is one of the best resource's explaining sola scriptura, among other subject's. It was put together by "Former Catholics For Christ". God bless.

 

[Kathryn]

The bible is all true but it is not all truth. There is truth outside the 66 (or 72 if you prefer) books of the bible.

 

[Chookna]

THREE
Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.
Rom. 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.
Matt. 28-19: Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Mark. 16-20: And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.
COMMENT: Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.
FCFC’S ANSWER: Jesus founded a teaching AND (not or) Bible-reading church. Paul testifies in 1 Thess.5:27: "I charge you by the Lord that THIS EPISTLE BE READ unto all the holy brethren." (Emphasis mine) Again in Colossians 4:16 we have Paul commanding the scriptures to be read: "And when this epistle IS READ among you, CAUSE THAT IT BE READ also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise READ THE EPISTLE from Laodicea." (Emphasis mine) In Revelation 1:3, we read: "BLESSED IS HE THAT READETH, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." (Emphasis mine) We also read in Acts 17:11 of the Bereans who were "more noble" in that they "...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures DAILY, whether those things were so." (Emphasis mine) In Acts 28:31, we read that Paul for two whole years was "preaching the kingdom of God" and "teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ". (Emphasis mine) Now does this mean that Paul was teaching and preaching something other than scripture? The answer is no. If we back up to verse 23-24 we read: "And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, BOTH OUT OF THE LAW OF MOSES, AND OUT OF THE PROPHETS, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken [oral], and some believed not." (As it is to this day.Emphasis mine) So we see that the early Christians used the Old Testament to prove the gospel as Paul confirms in Romans 1:1-2: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures)...." And again in Romans 16:25-26: "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith...." (Emphasis mine) FCFC’S COMMENT: This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the early church was a Bible-reading church.

 

[Chookna]

FOUR
Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?
FCFC’S ANSWER: No. There is no difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains. Paul clearly says that he preached "NONE OTHER THINGS than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23) (Emphasis mine)
FCFC’S COMMENTS: We think it interesting that Catholics ask if there was a "drastic difference" between what is written and what the apostles taught. Is this an admission that their traditions differ "drastically" from the New Testament gospel? Also the scriptures that they quoted were not a proof text in their defense. John 20:30 says that there were many "signs" (not doctrines) that were not written in "this book" but in verse 31, John clearly states: "But THESE are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (Emphasis mine) John’s book taught the divinity of Jesus and didn’t go into all the miracles which Jesus did as recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. There was ample evidence already WRITTEN to prove that Jesus was the Messiah Who had been promised in the Old Testament prophecies.

 

[slave2six]

The bible is all true...

Even the bit in Genesis where God created vegetation before he created the Sun the Moon and the Stars?

Do you believe in a literal "Fall of Man" as described in the Garden story?

 

[Chookna]

Even the bit in Genesis where God created vegetation before he created the Sun the Moon and the Stars?

Do you believe in a literal "Fall of Man" as described in the Garden story?

"Do you believe in a literal "Fall of Man"

Are you into the gnostics Slave2six ?

 

[Kathryn]

Even the bit in Genesis where God created vegetation before he created the Sun the Moon and the Stars?

Do you believe in a literal "Fall of Man" as described in the Garden story?

When I say that the bible is all true, I don't mean it's all literal - there's a BIG difference. The bible is a collection of (in my opinion) 72 books that are of various literary styles. I think it's obvious even to most lay people that some of these writings are not meant to be taken LITERALLY. But they ALL contain spiritual truths that guide our lives.

You mentioned the Creation story. Here's what I believe about that: I believe that the truth that is conveyed in the Genesis story is that God created all things. He COULD have created the world in seven days, seven minutes, seven centuries, seven million years - whatever. He is omnipotent. The point is that He is the Creator and that man is made in His image.

I also believe that man's nature is imperfect and that we need God's grace. We need a Force outside ourselves to reach our full potential, and that Force is the Creator.

 

[Chookna]

Hi Kathryn, I'm just curious of your religion title. I know what a Liturgical cycle and year is, but what is a Liturgical Christian if you don't mind me asking?

 

[sojourner]

This

Originally from the 1994, copy of Crying in the Wilderness Newsletter (a Roman Catholic Quarterly Produced by the Benedictine Monks of Most Holy Family Monastery). This newsletter contained an article entitled, "Answers to 25 Questions on the History of the New Testament which completely refute the Protestant’s ‘Bible Only Theory’". (This article, in turn, was taken from the book, The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible). "Former Catholics For Christ" have decided to use this issue to answer each of their 25 questions and comments.
ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE​

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH COMPLETELY REFUTE THE "BIBLE ONLY" THEORY

Is complete and utter nonsense. None of it correlates with actual history or anthropology.

 

[Chookna]

Hi Sojourner, was just wandering, instead of just blanket statements, we could make post's in order to try and support either doctrine, something I can make a proper response to. Thank you

 

[sojourner]

How about this? Sola scriptura was never heard of until the Protestant Reformation. The Biblical writers never intended this stuff to be read. They intended it to be heard. When Paul instructed the church to share the letters, that's all they were at that time -- letters. Paul did not intend to write scripture. (I further posit that the gospel writers had no such intention, either).

When the documents were written, the culture was very much an oral -- not a print -- culture. These stories were told fluidly long before they were written down.

 

[Chookna]

But does'nt certain scripture show teachings contrary to that popular belief? Such as

1CR 24:37 any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Thess.5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
1 Thess.5:1 ¶But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
Colossians 4:16 ¶And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea.
Revelation 1:3 Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.

These examples are a few.
You don't think there maybe a slight chance that the early church was a Bible-reading church? It sure indicates to me.

 

[Chookna]

FIVE
Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.
COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.
FCFC’S ANSWER: No. As shown in our previous answer, the gospel of grace, whether "oral" or "written" was the same message. Paul taught "none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come".
FCFC’S COMMENT: To say the Bible is "incomplete" and "needs something else to supplement it" reveals the true attitude of Rome against God’s Holy Word. First of all, the word of God completes man, man does not complete the word of God. 2 Tim.3:15 clearly shows us that: "...from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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 [Strong's Concordance #739 = "complete"], thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Rome’s claim that the Bible needs something to "supplement" it goes against the scriptures that clearly states: "Ye shall NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut.4:2) (Emphasis mine) "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut.12:32) "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov.30:6) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." (Rev.22:18) "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: NOTHING CAN BE PUT TO IT, NOR ANY THING TAKEN FROM IT: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." (Ecc.3:14) (Emphasis mine) It’s very clear that if no one can "add" to God’s word, or "take" from it, then it stands "alone". I wonder how many authors would appreciate someone rewriting their words and adding things to their writings they never said. How much more God’s holy word? "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt.4:4)

 

[HouseofIsrael]

The bible is all true but it is not all truth. There is truth outside the 66 (or 72 if you prefer) books of the bible.

I can relate to this.

 

[sojourner]

But does'nt certain scripture show teachings contrary to that popular belief? Such as

1CR 24:37 any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Thess.5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.
1 Thess.5:1 ¶But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
Colossians 4:16 ¶And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the [epistle] from Laodicea.
Revelation 1:3 Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.

These examples are a few.
You don't think there maybe a slight chance that the early church was a Bible-reading church? It sure indicates to me.

None of this suggests that they were "reading the Bible." To you and I, the letters are "the Bible." To the early Church, they were simply "letters from the bishop." To the early Church, the gospels were simply "stories about Jesus."

Most of your examples here are of letters. The first suggests that Paul is writing truth (but not scripture). The second also does not indicate reading. hearing would have been the norm. The third suggests that the reader read to all, so that they could hear -- not read for themselves. The fourth simply states that Paul was writing a letter. The fifth, likewise, suggests letters that are heard by the people. The sixth, again, suggests hearing. The seventh says "searched." In an oral culture, this would suggest searching the memory -- because folks had the texts memorized. The last suggests that stories were told from memory.

In those days, texts were committed to memory, and what was remembered wasn't word-for-word, it was the "jist" of the story. That's why we see different versions of the same stories in the Bible. None of this suggests to me that the early Church "read the Bible." It does suggest that some letters were written, and that there were written texts, which were most likely heard.

 

[sojourner]

FIVE
Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.
John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.
COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.
FCFC’S ANSWER: No. As shown in our previous answer, the gospel of grace, whether "oral" or "written" was the same message. Paul taught "none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come".
FCFC’S COMMENT: To say the Bible is "incomplete" and "needs something else to supplement it" reveals the true attitude of Rome against God’s Holy Word. First of all, the word of God completes man, man does not complete the word of God. 2 Tim.3:15 clearly shows us that: "...from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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 [Strong's Concordance #739 = "complete"], thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Rome’s claim that the Bible needs something to "supplement" it goes against the scriptures that clearly states: "Ye shall NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut.4:2) (Emphasis mine) "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut.12:32) "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov.30:6) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." (Rev.22:18) "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: NOTHING CAN BE PUT TO IT, NOR ANY THING TAKEN FROM IT: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." (Ecc.3:14) (Emphasis mine) It’s very clear that if no one can "add" to God’s word, or "take" from it, then it stands "alone". I wonder how many authors would appreciate someone rewriting their words and adding things to their writings they never said. How much more God’s holy word? "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt.4:4)

What these folks don't understand is that when the Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes texts say "do not add or subtract," it doesn't mean what they understand it to mean. If that were the case, then we would have to throw out the entire New Testament, for when OT authors refer to "the scriptures," generally they are referring, not to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, but to the Pentateuch.

Besides which, the Talmud has been in use as an authoritative (yet non-scriptural) source for a long, long time.

How many authors would appreciate having their works messed with? These days, not very many, since we have copyright and plagiarism laws. But we have to understand that, until the canon was closed, all these texts were very, very fluid.

This article is based, not in reality, but in theological supposition, forcing realities upon the texts that were never there in the first place.

 

[Dunemeister]

How about this? Sola scriptura was never heard of until the Protestant Reformation. The Biblical writers never intended this stuff to be read. They intended it to be heard. When Paul instructed the church to share the letters, that's all they were at that time -- letters. Paul did not intend to write scripture. (I further posit that the gospel writers had no such intention, either).

When the documents were written, the culture was very much an oral -- not a print -- culture. These stories were told fluidly long before they were written down.

I think this is a bit strong. The texts weren't intended to be read by everyone. But they were intended to be read by those who would be entrusted with their transmission (one has in mind Timothy whom Paul enjoined to study to show himself approved). True, Paul's letters were letters and were supposed to be read to the congregation. The congregation was to HEAR, but the reader -- duh! -- was to READ. And the fact that the church took the trouble to collect and copy these letters shows that reading them was considered a serious business to be undertaken by those who were capable and called to the task (i.e., presbyters and bishops).

I think it's also presumptuous to say that the authors of the NT documents didn't think they were penning scripture. They may well have thought that. If it's possible for God to inspire writers to write His words, it may indeed be possible for a writer to know that he's being so influenced. To say that the authors didn't know they were writing scripture begs certain questions about inspiration.

 

[sojourner]

I think this is a bit strong. The texts weren't intended to be read by everyone. But they were intended to be read by those who would be entrusted with their transmission (one has in mind Timothy whom Paul enjoined to study to show himself approved). True, Paul's letters were letters and were supposed to be read to the congregation. The congregation was to HEAR, but the reader -- duh! -- was to READ. And the fact that the church took the trouble to collect and copy these letters shows that reading them was considered a serious business to be undertaken by those who were capable and called to the task (i.e., presbyters and bishops).

I think it's also presumptuous to say that the authors of the NT documents didn't think they were penning scripture. They may well have thought that. If it's possible for God to inspire writers to write His words, it may indeed be possible for a writer to know that he's being so influenced. To say that the authors didn't know they were writing scripture begs certain questions about inspiration.

And those are questions that need to be asked! What constitutes "inspiration?"
I think the whole canonization process was flawed to begin with, had a faulty premise, and has been grossly abused across the centuries, most especially by the sola scriptura crowd. This "official list" of "what we may read in church" has morphed into something that we have killed, stuffed, set up on a shelf, and idolized.

The Jewish and Christian faiths are primarily witnessing not revelatory faiths. They tell stories. They write poetry. They produce prophecy, all of which speaks as a witness to God's works within the human family. What is Biblically meant by "it is written" has far, far different meaning today than it originally had.