Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
Cross Examination Rebuttal
Benjamin Rosado
Moses my friend,
In the cross exam, it seems that you are claiming that the notion of sola
scriptura does not mean the bible alone, but actually refers to scripture along
with the being pure and learned, diligent study, the help of the holy Spirit,
and several other things.
I do not think that is the same thing as saying scripture
alone. In my understanding it is like saying scripture and some other qualities.
you
asked:
Why would the apostle tell us to study the Word to be able
to understand it correctly...
I think that you are referring to 2 Tim 3:15 If not then please let me know what you are referring
to above.
If you are referring to 2Tim 3:25, then didn't we come to
the conclusion that that versi in its context does
not even refer to the new testament in the first
place? I came tot he understanding in our earlier statements, that the
scriptures that Timothy knew from infancy could refer only to the old testament.
Of course I am not saying that the Bible is not to be studied, of course not. I love the
Bible. But what does the bible really say about where we are to get our
knowledge of and hear about Christ?
It is of course, through the preaching of the Church.
Where did sola scriptura come from???
The bible shows over and over again that the apostles
preached Jesus Christ and His message. Jesus did not write the Bible of
course, everyone knows that.
They preached, before the bible was ever in existence, they
began preaching on Pentecost. Did they preach the bible? Not in the
sense that some people think. There was no bible as of yet.
What they preached was everything they had learned from
Jesus and about Jesus. They preached in the power of the holy Spirit. The Spirit was with them and they passed
that Spirit on to all who came to accept Christ through them. This is the
mission of the Church. I hope that you can see the difference between the
mission of the Church and the mission of the bible.
The real mission of the bible was to have a wonderful
testimony to Christ and a way of knowing Him in a beautiful and profound
way. But before the Bible there was still knowledge of Christ.
Now there is something else that people might call
"the so-called mission of the bible". This began when
someone rejected the church in the 16th century. The bible
understood in that way never existed before that. If it did and
Luther did not create something new, show me who handed down the idea of sola
scriptura to Martin Luther please. If you can show me that Christ's
church always believed in sola scriptura and handed that teaching on to all
generations after Christ, then I might rethink my position. Otherwise,
why should I believe in something that one man made up in the 16th
century? I would rather accept the teaching handed down from Christ and
the Apostles! Then and now through the church fathers and up
until this very day.
How else can you understand this verse anyways:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the
traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of
ours.
2 Thess. 2:15
Does the bible ever speak of any authority other than the
scriptures?
Well this verse says that we should
1) hold fast to the traditions you
were taught.
So what were they taught? Read the church fathers
about what they were taught about the Eucharist, bishops, purgatory, baptism
and a host of other questions we are trying to discover the true passing down
of.
Moses, if they passed down what you believe about baptism,
then I will accept what you believe (along with
them). But should I accept anything contrary to the traditions that they
were taught? No of course not, Paul says otherwise.
and
2) either by an oral
statement
An oral statement means that some things were taught
without the bible. Can those statements contradict the bible
though? No of course not. They must compliment each other, not
contradict each other. So how can anyone ever find out what was handed
down orally by the apostles? It isn’t in the scriptures is it? No
it is orally transmitted. This poses a problem for sola scriptura.
3) or by a letter of ours
So great we have letters of some of the apostles. We
are told that they too are to be accepted. And the Church did accept
them, when the books the belong to the new testament
were accepted and the false ones rejected. Do you see why I hold to the
teaching of the church? The teaching of the church is what gave me my
bible. The teaching of the church is good and powerful. It decided witht he guidance of the holy
Spirit, what would be in the bible. Sola scriptura did not choose which
books belong to the bible. Only the
The early church fathers should be studied in more depth
before pronouncing any idea that they do not teach unanimously on specific
subjects. If you like, I will post again the website that has the complete
fathers with an index. If you want to learn about any subject, search the
word in the index. Lets say baptism. Then
you will find all the entries about baptism. Maybe you can copy and paste
them onto a different page and take a good look at them all together.
This will speak volumes.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html
the
index is on the left side.
We may be moving into the subject decided for the next
discussion, the papacy, but let me just say that before anyone can claim what
certain fathers of the church said about the Pope, those actual statements should
be posted. It makes for a better and more solid statement.
Otherwise, who is to say that what you are telling me is what they actually
said. Let us see about this as we read the father's words.
I don't agree with you that the fathers you quoted who
referred to the bible ever said that it alone was the authority. I do
think that they said that the bible was very important to knowing Christ.
But what did they say about the Church? Because if they believed in sola
scriptura, you would never be able to quote an
early church father who said the bible alone is the authority and then who also
said that we must be faithful to the church's teachings. Otherwise which
church were they talking about?
Those words, the bible is our only authority are never spoken. Now you can try
to interpret that what they said meant that, but the argument falls apart when
that same father later says to be faithful to the church and the bishops.
When that happens, it only shows that the wresting of the scriptures is often
done without full knowledge.
Let me ask you some questions Moses.
What is the pillar and foundation of truth?
Where do we go when a brother sins against us?
Are the churches in the book of revelation invisible?
Were those churches really and truly part of Christ's
church?
If so, when did they fail to be Christ's Church?
If all the bibles in the world could give the clear and
perfect meaning of scripture, shouldn't Christ's church be one and visible?
Let me give you some scriptures about tradition:
Whoever listens to you listens to me.
Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent
me. Lk 10: 16
In the year 397 A.D. the catholic Church defines the canon of scripture under the
guidance of the holy Spirit.
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded
you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the
age. Mt 28: 20
…behave in the household of God, which is
the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Tim
3:15
So as far as above, let me say this:
Whoever listens to you listens to
me. This was spoken to the apostles sent out to preach Christ to the
nations. When they spoke, it was Christ speaking through them. This
means that they passed down the truth.
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust
to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as
well. 2 Tim 2: 2
Do you know that they also passed down the
teaching and preaching ministry to people like Timothy and Titus?
For this reason I left you… so that you might set right
what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed
you. Tit 1: 5
If Paul was directing people, how much more so was the Holy
Spirit directing the Church?
The Church continued. And then, in
time, put the canon of the bible together with the Holy Spirit's
guidance. Just like in Acts 15. It was after all, the same
church. If not, where did the church from Acts 15 go?
His Church will never fail you know.
This is a promise of Christ.
The church is the pillar and foundation of
truth.
A pillar upholds. A foundation makes
a sure placement for what is to be built upon it. The truth is built upon
the Church. Paul says that we should behave in it.
Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch
over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task
with joy… Heb 13: 17
You cannot obey your leaders unless you have leaders!
The Church has always had leaders Moses.
…I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for
the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones. Jude 1: 3
The faith has been handed down. Once
and for all. It came to the year 1500 and somebody decided it was
not to his liking. Well what can we say? Are we going to claim that
since you don't like it, it is false? How strange would that be. That is not how you learned Christ. No in
fact, the teaching was handed down once and for all. This means that
there is no new revelation of what the church is. It has already been
handed down. All else is not in line with the apostles and martyrs of the
Church.
I hope this blesses you Moses!
I pray that there will be unity in
John 17.
After all, some people only believe when they see
miracles.
"If you do not believe in me [because] of my words, at
least believe in me because of the signs that I do."
With faith and Belief in Jesus the Lord,
In the power of the holy Spirit,
Ben