Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
Second Cross Examination Rebuttal
Benjamin Rosado
Dear Moses, I hope I can explain why I do not believe in
sola scriptura.
Now, you said that:
When anybody reads the words, "Believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ and thou shall be saved" or "if you confess with your mouth
that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved."(cf. Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9) that there is no way that
these words from God Himself given through men under the infallible direction
of the Holy Spirit could be misunderstood
Well I know this sounds good in theory, but I don't think
that it has ever been proven to be true. How can all the disagreeing
protestant churches affirm that this is what happens when people read their
bibles? I don't think that they are not being guided by God, it's just
that they are not open enough to let Him lead them where He wants them to be
and believe. I don't think that people are insincere, no, but I have
realized that people accept God's message in stages. Life in Christ is a
process that unfolds as a Chrsitian matures.
Now you may say that they believe in all the core beliefs
together. And they do believe in some. But, they do not agree abut
some of the most important things of all. Some examples are the
Lord's supper, Baptism, Confirmation, and other
teachings. I believe that all of these are important to Jesus.
Beleiving in Christ is the most important thing you could
ever do. However, believing in Christ is more than just
believing that He is the Son of God. Have you ever wondered why He taught
people how to live? It is because believing in Him as your Lord means
that He becomes your Lord. That means He is your master and counselor.
Wouldn't it be strange for Jesus to say "Accept me as your Lord." but
then never tell us what, as His servants, we are to do? When Jesus is
Lord, He really wants to be your Lord.
Remember His words:
"Why do you call me Lord, Lord but refuse to do what I
have commanded you?"
Believing in Jesus is not a magic formula
phrase. Believing in Jesus is an entire way of life. It is not a
one time event but lasts for a lifetime. Unless we turn
away from Him like some have done in the past.
I hope that shows that the bible teaches much more
than a phrase we say or something we accept in our mind. It teaches that ,yes, Jesus needs to be your Lord, and
the bible teaches something along with that:
It teaches what accepting Jesus as Lord is.
For me I have come to see that I can say "Jesus is my
Lord" but I fail to do what He has commanded me to do.
"why do you call me Lord,
Lord but fail to do what I have commanded you?"
And what has Jesus commanded to do? Read the rest of
the bible to find out! Its all there. Now
make Jesus your Lord. He has chosen you, will you follow Him?
Thank God for the holy Spirit,
which Christ has given us to be able to follow Him. Before Jesus,
no one could obey the Ten Commandments, but now we can say no to the flesh and
say yes to the Spirit.
Moses, I hope you can understand this.
Regarding what you said about tradition:
I think you are saying that Paul was not passing down the
tradition of the early church. I am not sure if you understood what I
meant. What I wanted to say about tradition is that the tradition that
was handed down by the apostles to the subsequent Christians (those whom they
taught) is something you can look up.
They taught in actual places to real people. And some
of those people wrote down what baptism means. And the Eucharist.
That is the blessing of the early church fathers,
their writings can clear up the confusions all the Christians have with so
many issues.
Te be very honest with you Moses, I would rather accept the
interpretations of the early church fathers than the interpretations of Martin
Luther and the Reformers.
Why? Because for me, it makes much
more sense to accept the fathers. The reason why is because they
were taught personally by the apostles what it really the teaching of Jesus.
For me, I feel very secure believing the same things
about baptism and the Eucharist and a host of other topics, as those who were
taught by the apostles themselves.
Dear Moses, I must mention what you said at this
point.
you
said that:
We should also note the discrepancy that if the
"tradition" is contained in the "unanimous consent of the
fathers" then, how is it that the Thessalonians were to continue in what
had not yet come into existence? These Thessalonians probably received this
letter some forty years before the earliest Church Father.
I can see why what I wrote in my previous letter
didn't make sense. I wasn't clear enough about what we believe. You
see, we are not claiming that the early church had a need to read the church
fathers. This is the same about the bible. They couldn't read the bible or the
early church fathers (neither were in existence in the early years of the
church).
What we are saying is that everything that was taught by
the apostles was taught by preaching what Jesus had revealed to them. Not
revealed to them in writing, but revealed to them personally. They then
went out and taught everyone and made disciples (this word means "one who
follows").
Maybe you are claiming that the early church fathers are
not needed. But let me tell you why we hold they are needed.
For example, what if I told you that A=B. Then
Joe says "no no, A=X." Next thing you
know, some new guy says A actually = W. Now
everybody is claiming to be right!
If I want to know what A really equals, shouldn't I find
out what the early church believed? And after finding out, should I
accept a man like Irenaeus who was taught by the Apostles Peter and Paul?
I do accept his testimony. And his testimony conforms
with the bible. It conforms completely with what the Catholic Church believes today. This is
surely true, since we accept the writings of the early Christians. There
are unanimous about all the catholic beliefs. This is why I accept the
Catholic Church.
You said that you cannot prove that the doctrine of sola
scriptura was believed before the last book of the bible was written. But did
you know that there were many books floating around at that time claiming to be
inspired? The gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas, the Didache, the
acts of Paul, the gospel of Peter, epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas and
a host of others. So these books existed and people claimed that they
were God-breathed.
But do you know what stood the test? The Church
decided which books were true and which were not.
Now let me explain my position a little better:
When the bible says that they preached the word, it means
that they preached the message of Jesus. It can't mean that they preached
from the bible. That is impossible after all, since there was no bible at
that time.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . keep away from any brother who is
living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from
us.
No one is talking about the bible here, how could they
since there was no bible yet. But the church did keep order.
So it must be that the traditions or teachings which must
be accepted are from the Church itself. If you can accept this reasoning,
then doesn't it follow that the Church came before the bible?
And if the Church came before the bible, did the church
ever claim that once the bible came into existence the church would no longer
be needed to proclaim the word of God (the teaching of Christ). The bible
was not put together by the Church so that the church would no longer be
needed. No of course not. The bible was created so that we could have the
letters written by Christ's followers to read and read again and again.
Note this difference: Some people are claiming that
the Church is not needed to them. But aren't they claiming that the
Church, who gave them everything in the first place,
is not important? This just doesn't make sense to me. It is like
saying that I don't need my mother and that I never did
need my mother. But without her, I would not exist.
I have an important question that has come to me Moses. When Catholics
define how the bible describes a Church founded by Christ with His authority
guiding it, what do non-catholic Christians think? After all we quote
many scripture passages to show the Church's authority. Many passages in fact.
Do Protestants remain silent about this considering
themselves martyrs suffering at catholic hands?
What I am asking is, in your mind, do you think "Okay
I know sola scriptura is true, but here are all these passages from scripture
about the authority of the Church,... Lord, I am
suffering for you because I am being terribly assaulted by false teachings from
the scriptures itself (kind of like Jesus when he was tempted by Satan).
Lord I can't explain away these scriptures, but I trust in you. I believe
in Sola scriptura because it is the only truth.
Is that the prayer that is said to the Lord?
I would like to show you that Jesus' answer
is for people to read His word some more. And see if these things are
true. Is there a fear that discarding sola scriptura means that we lose
Christ? After all, Jesus never said that we must believe in sola
scriptura. I wish that people wouldn't hold so tightly
to sola scriptura as if you would offend the Lord by rejecting
that concept.
Here is a copy of a discussion that I want you to read
Moses:
Protestant: The only way that one could prove
sola Scriptura to be false, would be to demonstrate that there are additional
sources of authority in the same league as Scripture.
Catholic: Okay:
1) The Church (Mt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15).
2) Tradition (1 Cor
11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, 2 Pet 2:21, cf. Acts 8:14, 1
Thess 2:9, 2:13, 1 Cor
15:1, Gal 1:9).
3) Oral Tradition (2 Tim 1:13-14, 2:2).
4) The many warnings and prohibitions against
division and sectarianism, which are made inevitable by sola Scriptura
(e.g., Jn 17:20-23, Rom 16:17, 1 Cor
1:10-13, Gal 5:19-21).
5) Church Conciliar Authority:
Council of
6) Apostolic Authority and
"Deposit" (Eph 2:20, Jude 3).
7) Apostolic Succession (Acts 1:20-26).
8) Church's (Bishops' and Priests') Authority
to "bind and loose" (Mt 18:18).
9) Petrine/Papal
Authority (Mt 16:18-19, Lk 22:31-32, Jn 21:15-17, Acts 2:14-41).
10) Authority of Bishops (Acts 14:22, 1 Tim 5:22, 2 Tim
1:6, Titus 1:5).
11) Church's/Bishops' Power of
Excommunication and "Anathema" (Acts 8:14-24, 1 Cor
16:22, 1 Tim 5:20, 2 Tim 4:2, Titus 1:10-11).
12) And of course the Church determined the
canon of Scripture. A stream cannot rise higher than its source. Strictly
speaking, the Bible wasn't produced by the Church (as it was inspired and
"God-breathed"), but the canon was, and since the two cannot be
separated, in a large sense the Church "gave" us the Bible. Therefore, to set the Bible over against, or higher than the Church
is absurd and ludicrous -- historically, biblically, and logically.
Taken from Bible Conversations by Dave Armstrong
(this man agrees with you about the material
sufficiency of scripture. Give
him a read if you are interested in the Catholic presentation.)
But Moses, there is no scriptures
that teach sola scriptura. You did mention 2 Tim 3:15 and the
following. I just don't see how that verse says scripture alone is
good. It only states clearly that scripture is
good. That is a very large difference for me.
Catholics believe that scripture is
good. But the bible teaches about the authority of the Church to clearly
teach what Jesus has said about so many important topics. Love being the
foremost of all. Love of God and love of neighbor.
An honest question I ask others is why
did God choose to give the canon through the visible catholic
church and its structure?
The idea of an invisible church was not
taught before the reformation. It was a new teaching for Christians. But
I feel safe knowing that the one who gave us the scriptures from God's breath,
to their hands, to the world, is the Catholic Church! Why should I believe
in an other Church? At the very least, I
know that God was with them in 397 A.D. when they chose what books belong in
the bible. that is the beauty of tradition and
the Church.
I love my bible and I know where it came
from. I know who God chose to bring it to me. Are we being accused of
accepting that Church? But why? Her
interpretation should be, at the least accepted as just as good as someone else’s
interpretation. But even more so actually, because Only
the Catholic Church gave us the bible in the first place. That puts the
Church in a greater position than all others.
with love for His bride, who can never fail and has given us
the light of Christ,
Ben