Sola
scriptura
teaches
that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the
Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other,
fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to
and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only
infallible
rule
of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether
we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything
else, are by nature inferior
to
and
subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is the
ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or
church. That's because it is theopneustos,
(God-breathed)
and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of
necessity therefore be of the highest authority.
Verga - Opening Statement
Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?
Begin word count: If
you ignore any part of this evidence I will take your silence as
concession on any such points.
I
will state right from the start that the Catholic Church believes
in
the material sufficiency scripture, but not in the formal. Instead
Catholics believe that there are two other "rules" that
contribute equally to our faith knowledge. These are the Sacred
Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.
For
sola scriptura to be a valid belief two things must occur, one it
must be found to be taught explicitly in the Bible, and it must be
demonstrated to have been practiced by the Apostles in the writing of
the scripture. To demonstrate that I will be referring directly to:
1)
The Bible itself 2)
History and Historical sources
If
we examine the Bible closely we find that no where do any of the
writers ever say that the Bible is to be the only source of faith,
infallible or otherwise. Instead we see numerous accounts of them
calling the Old Testament scriptures to act as witness to what they
are teaching to audiences to convert them. The Jewish people already
had the scriptures of the Old Testament available to them, and in the
area of Palestine Jesus had walked among them preaching to numerous
crowds over a period of three years performing miracles: feeding over
9000 of them, healing illnesses, curing the deaf, blind, mute, and
raising some from the dead. Yet given this they still did not
recognize him as the promised Messiah. They were expecting a warrior
king to free them from slavery that would rout their enemies and rule
over an earthly kingdom. Instead the Apostles were preaching a gentle
servant to them that brought them a heavenly kingdom. To the Jewish
people this was a new Paradosis
or
Tradition.
Let
us examine some Bible verses: 1
Cor 11:2
I
"Praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast
to the traditions,
just
as I handed them on to you."
2
Thess. 2:15
"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."( Notice that Paul is telling the audience that there are
two distinct sources of tradition being used, both written and oral.)
2
Tim 2:2
"And
what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful
people who will have the ability to teach others as well."
Let
us now look at several cases where the sacred authors prefer to speak
directly their audience in person rather than entertain the
possibility of misunderstanding the written word: 1
Cor 11:34
"If
anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may
not result in judgment. The
other matters I shall set in order when I come."
2
John 12
"Although
I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink.
Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak
face to face so that our joy may be complete."
3
John 13-14
"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."
If
the the written word is so "infallible" why speak or visit
the various Churches at all? the simple fact is that there is room
for error and this error can be corrected by direct observation and
remediation.
Protestants
like to use this verse to demonstrate the superiority of Scripture
over other methods of revelation, but when looked at in the correct
context actually helps to disprove Sola Scriptura. Acts
17:11
"These
Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they
received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures
daily to determine whether these things were so.
Luke
tells us in Acts
17:2 "Following
his usual custom, Paul joined them, and for three Sabbaths he entered
into discussions with them from the scriptures."
In
Acts 13:14-52 we are told that he spoke to them of the flight from
Egypt, the Law, the Prophets including the Judges and Samuel, David
and so on. He ended by telling them about Jesus and how the
inhabitants of Jerusalem failed to recognize Jesus and had him put to
death, but that He was raised on the third day and that this had been
witnessed by many.
Some
of the Thessalonians rejected Paul's revelation of the Messiah while
the Bereans accepted this new tradition. Both groups had the
scripture of the Old Testament, both groups heard Paul speaking the
new Tradition or Paradosis
of
Jesus as the Messiah at the synagogue over several weeks. The Bereans
examined the scriptures in light of these new spoken tradition and
accepted Jesus, while the Thessalonians accepted the scriptures
solely and rejected Jesus. Lets
look at how the Thessalonians finally received the truth of Jesus: 1
Thessalonians 2:13
"And
for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that,in
receiving the word of God from
hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the
word of God,
which
is now at work in you who believe."
Paul's
spoken word, this new Tradition, convinced them by examining the
Scriptures they already had in a new light. The Scriptures were used
as a witness
testifying
to the veracity of Paul's testimony that was given to them in a
mostly oral and occasionally written form. Paul never once says that
the gospel is derived from scripture, rather he says that the Law and
Prophets testify to Jesus.
Luke
1: 3
"I
too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to
write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent
Theophilus," Luke
1:4
"so
that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have
received."
Luke
is confirming in writing what Theophilus had already accepted by word
of mouth.
Further
evidence can be seen in the fact that the New Testament authors
accepted Traditions that had not been previously recorded in the
scriptures that they already had before them. The author of Genesis
is fully aware of the covenants that God established with Adam, Noah,
and Abraham. Each of these occurred centuries before they were
written down. When God made Moses aware of Himself in the Burning
bush, He and the Children of Israel were able to accept that this was
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because of Tradition, not
anything that had been written down previously.
Let's
look at the Mosaic covenant This covenant was given to Moses by mere
creatures, the Angels, while the Covenant of the New Testament was
given by the Son of God Himself and was superior: Galatians
3:19
"Why,
then, the law? ...... it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a
mediator."
Hebrews
2:2
"For
if the word announced through angels proved firm,....."
Acts
7:53
"You
received the law as transmitted by angels,...."
Yet
no where in the Old Testament is this recorded that the Mosaic
covenant was given through angels.
There
are also several other incidents of the New Testament authors
accepting Traditions that have not been previously recorded: 2
Timothy 3:8
"Just
as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses,...."
Jude
9
"Yet
the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute
over the body of Moses,"
Jude
14-15
"Enoch,
of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied also about them when
he said, "Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones
...." (This prophecy is not recorded in the Old Testament, but
in the "Book of Enoch" which is non-canonical)
Hebrews
11:37
"They
were stoned, sawed in two,....." (From the "Ascension of
Isaiah, not the OT) Not
one of these is recorded in the Old Testament, and it could be argued
that this is simply "human" error, but what about when
Jesus Himself does it?
Matthew
23:2
saying,
"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the
chair of Moses. This
position of authority is based solely on Tradition, it is not
recorded in the Scripture any where, and in the very next verse Jesus
gives it His stamp of approval telling his followers to obey
them.
The
Burden of Proof is on my opponent to prove the formal sufficiency of
scripture. Based on the Scriptures themselves as to what is the
authority that is formally sufficient. 1
Tim 3:15
"......the
household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar
and foundation of truth."
Matthew
16:18
"And
so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church,.... Matthew
16:19
I
will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven." (This
is repeated to all the Apostles in Matthew
18:18)
Jesus
reinforces the authority of the Church here: Matthew18:17
"If
he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.
If
he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would
a Gentile or a tax collector."
Jesus
Gives the Apostles all his authority: Matthew
28:18
Then
Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. Mathew
28:19
Go,
therefore,
and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, Matthew
28:20
teaching
them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And
behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
John 16:12 "I
have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now."
John 16:13
"But
when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.
He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and
will declare to you the things that are coming." Jesus
tells us that certain things will me made clear in the future and
this understanding will come from the Holy Spirit guiding the leaders
of the Church.
Turning
now to historical evidence to support the Catholic position. There is
little disagreement that the Canon of the New Testament was ordered
in 382, 393 and 397 at the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.
These councils decided not only which 27 books were in the New
Testament, but their respective order as well. Some previously
declared canonical books that were not included were, "The
Shepherd of Hermas," 1 Clement, The Didache, and others. Since
the Bible does not contain an infallible list of its contents then
this decision must have come down to us from at least one of two
methods, Tradition and inspiration of the Catholic Church. Further many
people were not literate at that time in history.
Next
we need to consider How the `Gospel" of Jesus was spread prior
to the Canon being ordered. There were no copiers, computers, or even
typewriters, or even printing presses. The Gospel was spread by word
of mouth. Itinerant preachers given authority by Jesus and the
Apostles to preach and teach the word. They went from city to village
to town, teaching mostly orally and occasionally by letter. They
tried to convert the Jews and the Gentiles by talking to them and
reasoning with them.
All
through the scriptures we see the Apostles directing others to keep
tradition in mind and to appeal to the authority of the Church. It
was to the leaders of the Church that Jesus gave all His authority
to. He also promised these leaders that the Holy Spirit would guide
them and their successors.
The
most important thing to keep in mind is that nowhere
in
the Scriptures do Jesus or the Apostles ever say that the Scriptures
are to be the final authority instead the authority is shared by
Tradition, the Church and the Scriptures.
End
word count 2023 words.
|