Know the truth about sola scriptura and Catholicism

[Chookna]

SIX http://truecatholic.bizland.com/proof.htm
What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.
2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.
FCFC’S ANSWER: Paul said: "For I have not shunned to declare unto you ALL THE COUNSEL of God." (Acts 20:27) This same apostle also said: "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." (1Cor.2:2) Paul not only put an anathema on anyone who preached any other gospel (Gal.1:8-10), but also gave us a summary of the gospel in 1Cor.1-11: "Moreover, brethren, I DECLARE UNTO YOU THE GOSPEL WHICH I PREACHED unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; BY WHICH ALSO YE ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time...Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."(Emphasis mine)
FCFC’S COMMENT: We have several warnings concerning man-made traditions that were contrary to the word of God. In Mt.15:3, Jesus said, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" And again, Jesus said, "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Mt.15:6) In Mark 7:8, Jesus again says, "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." Jesus again says, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mr.7:9) In verse 13, He continues saying, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered...." Paul continues with the warnings against traditions in Col.2:8: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." We are also told by Peter in 1:18-21: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your VAIN CONVERSATION RECEIVED BY TRADITION FROM YOUR FATHERS; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God...." (Emphasis mine) There is a difference between the traditions that coincide with the word of God and man-made traditions. Which will you trust?

 

[sojourner]

We have several warnings concerning man-made traditions that were contrary to the word of God. In Mt.15:3, Jesus said, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" And again, Jesus said, "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Mt.15:6) In Mark 7:8, Jesus again says, "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." Jesus again says, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mr.7:9) In verse 13, He continues saying, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered...."

None of these refer to church Tradition that upholds Biblical tenet. Besides, the Bible is part of Tradition. Should we throw it out, too?

There is a difference between the traditions that coincide with the word of God and man-made traditions. Which will you trust?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the pitfalls we must avoid?

Are you aware that, for centuries, the Church (including the proto-Church -- and Christ, himself) relied upon Tradition as much as scripture for its teaching? Sola scriptura is nothing more than a knee-jerk reactionary stance, made in error.

 

[Dunemeister]

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.

I agree that the question must be asked, so fair enough. I was only pointing out that the question ought not be begged.

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.

Why all or nothing? Perhaps Christian faith is witnessing to revelation? The resurrection of Jesus (historical reality), among other acts of God, reveals God in important ways. So there is both revelation and witness. I see no reason to affirm one at the expense of the other. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the assocation of revelation with "indefeasable truth claim", is that more or less it?

 

[ayani]

Jesus did not write the Bible, that's true.

but the Bible does tell us everything we need to know about who Jesus is, why He came, and how we can be saved.

traditions can be useful if they point to, are understood, and edify. but traditions or church life should not replace a living, daily relationship with God's Son, or the walk of discipleship.

it's also worth noting that many people have come to Christian faith without reading a Bible. and there are many Christians around the world who don't have access to God's Word, or have membership in a particular church, but who have and love Jesus with all their heart. Christians should read, study, and enjoy the Bible- it's a great blessing to have Bibles so readily available in so many languages. thank God for the printing press, and for faithful Bible translators.

an early Christian was once asked by a Roman ruler "where are your scriptures?" as the authorities were seizing and burning copies of Christian scriptures. the Christian answered "my scriptures are in my heart". that is the beauty of the promise in Jeremiah 31:33-34, fulfilled by the Holy Spirit of God's Son, in the heart of every born again believer.

that doesn't mean Christians don't need the Bible. it's God's Word, and God-breathed, useful for learning, growth, correction, and worship. if we love God, we will love the things of Him. this includes His scriptures, too.

 

[Chookna]

None of these refer to church Tradition that upholds Biblical tenet. Besides, the Bible is part of Tradition. Should we throw it out, too?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the pitfalls we must avoid?

Are you aware that, for centuries, the Church (including the proto-Church -- and Christ, himself) relied upon Tradition as much as scripture for its teaching? Sola scriptura is nothing more than a knee-jerk reactionary stance, made in error.

Hello Sojourner. As Kathryn posted "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," and in stating this, is it similarly saying that the Catholic Traditions (truth)", are made manifest through oral only teachings (apart from what the scriptures say (truth)), which are eventually brought down from the Apostles. If yes, is it fair enough to say that the CC would place equal importance on these two, traditions and scripture? And if so, would you agree that it would be important not to contradict the two as not to create a "pitfall"?

 

[Chookna]

SEVEN The Catholic Religion Proved by the Protestant Bible
Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.
COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.
FCFC’S ANSWER: By 100 A.D. all the books were completed. Until the testimony of Jesus was written down, they depended on the Old Testament, which prophesied of that same grace. (1 Pet.1: 10-12) As the apostles wrote the epistles, faithful men copied them and sent them to all the churches commanding them to be read. This means that the early Christians had access to the word of God at all times. How else could the Bereans search the scriptures daily?

Listen to this fantastic Gospel music from my church here in Australia.
YouTube - The Great Shepherd Finale
YouTube - El Shaddai - by Skye Playsted

 

[Chookna]

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.

"Theological supposition". Is this not the same God who inspired the OT as well as the NT? Don't you know that God does not change? The OT says "
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it". And "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." And also "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." Certainly your not saying that God would reneg on "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it"YesJesus fullfilled the Law, but I'm sure base rules such as these were never meant to be downplayed.

Matthew 11
28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

 

[Chookna]

Any comment on this news article?
Evangelist Warren to Muslims: Let's partner - Faith- msnbc.com
This guy exposes the truth behind his apostate ministry.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=62407234913

 

[sojourner]

I agree that the question must be asked, so fair enough. I was only pointing out that the question ought not be begged.



Why all or nothing? Perhaps Christian faith is witnessing to revelation? The resurrection of Jesus (historical reality), among other acts of God, reveals God in important ways. So there is both revelation and witness. I see no reason to affirm one at the expense of the other. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the assocation of revelation with "indefeasable truth claim", is that more or less it?

No. I object to the obfuscation of witness in favor of revelation. yes, God is revealed through God's acts in humanity -- especially with regard to the Faithful -- whether Jew or Xian. But the Bible was written primarily as a witness to what has been revealed -- not as revelation in and of itself.

The Bible works in the same way we do. We witness to God's grace. In that witness, God is revealed.

 

[sojourner]

the Bible does tell us everything we need to know about who Jesus is, why He came, and how we can be saved.

Not necessarily.

traditions can be useful if they point to, are understood, and edify. but traditions or church life should not replace a living, daily relationship with God's Son, or the walk of discipleship.

That's what the Tradition does. That's what the Tradition is. The Tradition edifies us and points us toward grace. The Tradition is living a daily relationship with God. The Tradition is the walk of discipleship.

 

[sojourner]

Hello Sojourner. As Kathryn posted "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," and in stating this, is it similarly saying that the Catholic Traditions (truth)", are made manifest through oral only teachings (apart from what the scriptures say (truth)), which are eventually brought down from the Apostles. If yes, is it fair enough to say that the CC would place equal importance on these two, traditions and scripture? And if so, would you agree that it would be important not to contradict the two as not to create a "pitfall"?

I'm not convinced that anything you've posited thus far constitutes such a "pitfall."
In fact, the article, itself, is based upon stuff that is not factual, creating its own pitfall.

 

[sojourner]

Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension.

Here's what I mean. It's generally accepted that Matthew was written in the 80's. This would place the writing roughly 50 years after the fact -- not ten. The earliest letter was written about 50, placing it roughly 20 years after the fact.

As the apostles wrote the epistles,

Paul (not an original apostle -- and who never met Jesus) wrote some of the letters. The rest were not written by apostles, either.

faithful men copied them and sent them to all the churches commanding them to be read. This means that the early Christians had access to the word of God at all times.

Except that the letters were not considered by the early Church to be scriptural.

How else could the Bereans search the scriptures daily?

By reminding themselves of the OT stuff they had access to.

"Theological supposition". Is this not the same God who inspired the OT as well as the NT? Don't you know that God does not change? The OT says "
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it". And "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." And also "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."

But this was written before the NT was a reality. Therefore, the statement does not include the NT as scripture. So, our inclusion of the NT would be going against that command, if it means what you think it means.

God does not change. But our perception of God changes, and our scriptures have changed with that perception.

Certainly your not saying that God would reneg on "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it"YesJesus fullfilled the Law, but I'm sure base rules such as these were never meant to be downplayed.

Absolutely not! To follow the One who fulfilled the Law is to reverence that Law.

 

[Oberon]

Except that the letters were not considered by the early Church to be scriptural.

The very fact that they survived indicates that from the beginning they were copied and transmitted as something more than simply personal communication between Paul and a single community.

 

[sojourner]

The very fact that they survived indicates that from the beginning they were copied and transmitted as something more than simply personal communication between Paul and a single community.

The very fact that Paul was a person of great importance, given authority and maintaining a position of leadership would give them reason to do that. Papal bulls are copied and transmitted as more than mere "letters," but they aren't considered to be scriptural in nature.

 

[Oberon]

The very fact that Paul was a person of great importance, given authority and maintaining a position of leadership would give them reason to do that. Papal bulls are copied and transmitted as more than mere "letters," but they aren't considered to be scriptural in nature.

True. However, transmitting texts back then was very different. We have only a few copies of most ancient texts, and far more copies of Paul's letters. I would say that very early they were transmitted as "scripture" (whatever that meant at the time). But then again, so was the Shepard of Hermas, the Didache, and so on.

 

[Dunemeister]

No. I object to the obfuscation of witness in favor of revelation. yes, God is revealed through God's acts in humanity -- especially with regard to the Faithful -- whether Jew or Xian. But the Bible was written primarily as a witness to what has been revealed -- not as revelation in and of itself.

The Bible works in the same way we do. We witness to God's grace. In that witness, God is revealed.

I'm not so sure. I hold that the bible (OT and NT) involved something more than humans reporting (interpreting?) God's (putative) actions in history. I'm not sure exactly how to characterize it, but at the very least it involves God speaking through those who penned the books we call scripture. It doesn't involve possession -- God "taking over" the writer. Rather, it's a case where God is so utterly present to the writer that the writer's thoughts and God's thoughts cohere exactly. Thus the human writer's individuality and style and personality are retained, yet God's thoughts are communicated through the writer's thoughts.

This the bible works in the same way that Jesus does. Jesus is a fusion of the divine and human in perfect harmony. So is scripture. Thus just as Jesus is a revelation of God, so is scripture. One is the Word enfleshed; the other is the Word inscripturated. All authority has been given to Jesus. The bible together with the Holy Spirit mediate that authority.

Can such a view get abused? Of course! But then so can yours. One might well argue that if the bible merely witnesses to revelation, one might take or leave that witness (and in fact, the lunatic fringe of the liberal wing of the Anglican Church does just that), which leads to all sorts of historical and spiritual distortions, some quite monstrous. It's simply not the case that regarding scripture as revelation needs must leave us in stultifying rigidity. Nor is it the case that regarding scripture as witness frees us from the possibility of abuse. Unfortunately, 'taint that simple.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not so sure. I hold that the bible (OT and NT) involved something more than humans reporting (interpreting?) God's (putative) actions in history. I'm not sure exactly how to characterize it, but at the very least it involves God speaking through those who penned the books we call scripture. It doesn't involve possession -- God "taking over" the writer. Rather, it's a case where God is so utterly present to the writer that the writer's thoughts and God's thoughts cohere exactly. Thus the human writer's individuality and style and personality are retained, yet God's thoughts are communicated through the writer's thoughts.

This the bible works in the same way that Jesus does. Jesus is a fusion of the divine and human in perfect harmony. So is scripture. Thus just as Jesus is a revelation of God, so is scripture. One is the Word enfleshed; the other is the Word inscripturated. All authority has been given to Jesus. The bible together with the Holy Spirit mediate that authority.

Can such a view get abused? Of course! But then so can yours. One might well argue that if the bible merely witnesses to revelation, one might take or leave that witness (and in fact, the lunatic fringe of the liberal wing of the Anglican Church does just that), which leads to all sorts of historical and spiritual distortions, some quite monstrous. It's simply not the case that regarding scripture as revelation needs must leave us in stultifying rigidity. Nor is it the case that regarding scripture as witness frees us from the possibility of abuse. Unfortunately, 'taint that simple.

That's a pretty thought, but I just don't think it worked quite in that way. How could it, when our treatment of the texts is so different from early treatment? We have made the texts rigid and enshrined them as such. Not so with the ancients. For them, the texts were very fluid, remaining open to editing and revision. Indeed, the ancients were not concerned so much with the word-for-word transmission, as they were with the "jist."

Now, if you want to say that the Church, as the Body of Christ, communicated these stories to the best of its ability, and that the Church, as the Body of Christ, acts as God's agents on Earth, that still implies "inspiration," and is, I believe, closer to the way it really happened. If you want to say that God inspired the scribes to write down exactly what they had heard, that's fine, too.

yes, we do have revelation. But as I said, that revelation comes through the vehicle of witness. When we tell stories, we're witnessing. As the Body of Christ on Earth, we do reveal God through our praxis, part of which is witness, both written and otherwise.

In fact, many do "take or leave that witness." How many times have we heard here that the Bible is "false," "fairy-tales," and "baseless myth?" See, I don't look at witness as "merely" anything. God has chosen God's Church to carry on in God's Name. What we do is sanctioned by God. Witness is a venerable activity, through which God is revealed -- just as the Eucharist is a witness -- a venerable activity that we show -- through which grace is mediated.

The Bible is "more than reporting." Witness (in the ecclesiastical sense) is more than reporting. It is living an example. As Jesus was a witness to God's grace, so is the Church.

 

[sojourner]

True. However, transmitting texts back then was very different. We have only a few copies of most ancient texts, and far more copies of Paul's letters. I would say that very early they were transmitted as "scripture" (whatever that meant at the time). But then again, so was the Shepard of Hermas, the Didache, and so on.

This stuff fascinates me, and I wish we knew more about it. Unfortunately, even scholars have to be in certain camps. I'd stand ready to strike my tent and move, if you could provide something that would compel me to do so.

 

[Oberon]

This stuff fascinates me, and I wish we knew more about it. Unfortunately, even scholars have to be in certain camps. I'd stand ready to strike my tent and move, if you could provide something that would compel me to do so.

Well, I suppose it all depends on how one defines scripture. That Paul's letters were used from the beginning in a litergical way, and in various communities, is evident by their survival, and not just survival but an excess of texts. We have, for example, less than ten texts of the Medea of Euripides (if memory serves), and they are all from the middle ages. Yet with Paul we have multiple early witnesses. Romans alone is in at least three 4th century manuscripts, and although the gospel authors show know sign of knowing his letters, Luke at least knows he was a large figure in the early christian communities.

I just don't know how to account for the survival of these texts in the way that they did, if it were not that they were held to be scriptural in some sense.

 

[sojourner]

Well, I suppose it all depends on how one defines scripture. That Paul's letters were used from the beginning in a litergical way, and in various communities, is evident by their survival, and not just survival but an excess of texts. We have, for example, less than ten texts of the Medea of Euripides (if memory serves), and they are all from the middle ages. Yet with Paul we have multiple early witnesses. Romans alone is in at least three 4th century manuscripts, and although the gospel authors show know sign of knowing his letters, Luke at least knows he was a large figure in the early christian communities.

I just don't know how to account for the survival of these texts in the way that they did, if it were not that they were held to be scriptural in some sense.

But when the letters, themselves, speak of "the scriptures," they're not including themselves in that set of writings.