www.StillCatholic.com
TWENTY-ONE REASONS TO REJECT SOLA SCRIPTURA
(by Joel
Peters)
OTHER
REASONS TO DISMISS SOLA SCRIPTURA (Bible Alone)
Sola Scripture: A
Blueprint for Anarchy (by Patrick Madrid)
Scripture Alone by
Sebastian R. Fama
Do
Christians Need Only the Bible?
AUDIO DEBATE: Bible Alone?
(James Akin v James White)
Scripture
is Tradition (by Jeff Cavins)
***********************************************************************************
A couple quick notes:
Regarding the Protestants
doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Catholics (well, the few Catholics that have heard
of Sola Scriptura) believe it is inconsistent and illogical for Protestants to say
they trust the Catholic Church’s authority and infallible decision regarding
accepting the 27 books of the New Testament (a Church Council decision of the
late 4th century), while ignoring the Church’s REASONS for including
these books in the Bible.
In other words, if one accepts the fact that our
Church Fathers were so reliable that, without error, they helped assembled our
Bible correctly, then does it make sense to overlook the fact that these same
Church Fathers embraced Catholic doctrines?
These brilliant, prayerful guys studied the heck out
of Scripture, and they studied the heck out of what the apostles had taught
while on Earth. They concluded that 1)
27 books were the inspired ones 2)
that Christ’s Body and Blood were truly present under the form of bread and
wine; 3) that God gave priests the
power to administer God’s forgiveness
4) that the Church’s leaders must be successors of apostles….
In fact, they wouldn’t have accepted a book as
inspired Scripture if it went against these Catholic doctrines! Again, it makes
no sense to us that a non-Catholic would accept the 27 books of the New
Testament, but not the reasons for their inclusion in the Bible.
For example, when the Church admitted
the Gospel of John into the Bible, it was specifically affirming the book’s
unchanging teaching about Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the
Eucharist.
When the Church affirmed that the
Gospel of Matthew was inspired Scripture, it was also affirming the book’s
constant teaching that Christ gave the leaders of the Catholic Church the power
to “bind and loose” on earth.
When the Church admitted St. Paul’s
letter to the Romans into the Bible, it was also reaffirming the long-held
Christian doctrine that it was possible to lose one’s salvation after receiving
grace (See: Romans 11:22).
Catholics believe the “Bible Alone” doctrine is
unbiblical since Scripture never says Scripture is the “sole authority” or “only
authority” or that it’s “sufficient” or that it’s “OK to personally develop
doctrines from Scripture that contradict the original Church teaching.”
Instead, Scripture tells us the opposite - that the Church
is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (I Tim 3:15), and that personal
interpretation of Scripture is not permissible (2 Pet 1:20).
Scripture is the Word of God, so it is more than
just a bunch of words. It contains specific truthful teaching that cannot be
changed from one century to the next. If Scripture taught the Real Presence in
the centuries after the apostles (which is precisely what the early Christians
believed Scripture taught), then that’s what it still teaches.
We look at history and see that only the Catholic
Church has preserved constant and unchanging interpretations of Scripture since
Christ’s time.
When two interpretations of Scripture contradict one
another, only one can be truthful.
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead His Church
“into ALL truth” (John 16:13)
Protestant pastors, on the other hand, will admit
that their churches may err in pronouncing an interpretation of something
contained in Scripture.
In all, there are more than 25,000 Christian
denominations that believe that Scripture is all you need to properly interpret
Scripture, but they all come up with a different interpretation of the Bible.
Some verses are easy to understand. Others are more
difficult, especially for those unfamiliar with the original language and
culture. Everyone turns to some authority when they want to know the meaning of
a difficult Scriptural verse. The choices are: a pastor; a Bible study leader;
the writings of the Reformers; a big book of Biblical commentary; the Bible
plus picking and choosing among the minority voices of Church Fathers……and……….
the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
That same Catholic Church, which
authoritatively decided which books would be in the New Testament near the end
of the 4th century, has for 2,000 years prevented man’s
interpretation of the Bible from seeping into the sacred Word of God.
Catholics would add that the Bible Alone doctrine was not embraced by any Christian group until the 1500s.
Catholics would ask: How could salvation be dependent on the Bible ALONE for the 1,450 years before the invention of the printing press?
Historically, Christians learned Scripture by coming to
Mass. They learned it through bishops who had a direct line back to the apostles, and by those men appointed by these bishops to
assist them (priests).
The Word of God rules our lives as Catholics. But the Word
of God must be interpreted in the same way it was intended to be interpreted by
God. To ensure we do not obscure Christ’s original teaching, Christ established
a Church.
*******************************************************************************************************************************
Below are just a
few examples of how the Reformers or those who followed them seemed to have
reinterpreted the Bible to make it conform with their
new doctrines:
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can
enter the kingdom of God without being born again of water and Spirit”
For 1,500 years,
the meaning of this Scripture verse was that baptism was necessary for entering
heaven (being born again of water and Spirit was and is the literal definition
of Baptism, and was understood so by early Christians). After Sola Fide was
introduced in the 1500s, a brand new interpretation came down, saying the verse
did not refer to Baptism. If you read down to John
3:22, you’ll see that Jesus then went
out and spent some time baptizing, which makes complete sense if you understand
that He is referring to Baptism in John 3:5.
1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism now saves you” This verse was a literal teaching
in the Early Church. Reformers were forced to come up with a non-literal
interpretation in the 1500s in order to fit the brand new Sola Fide theory.
John 6:35-71: The early Church clearly understood Jesus to be referring
to real flesh, not symbolic flesh, in these verses and in later verses on the
Last Supper. It was not until the 1500s that the Reformers decided to
contradict 1,500 years of Christianity and interpret it to be symbolic instead
of literal.
John 20:23: The early Church clearly understood this verse to be
giving the Church and her priests the power to forgive sins on earth, (ie, to
administer Christ’s forgiveness). The Reformers changed the meaning of
Scripture once again.
Here is the
verse….John 20:23
“Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, and whose sins
you retain are retained.”
Mt 18:18
“Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
In the language of the time,
to bind and loose meant to give authoritative teaching. The entire world of
Christianity understood exactly what Jesus was saying here.
After Luther unleashed his
private judgment theory, he saw the dangers of it as numerous sects began
growing and multiplying. He said in his Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423),
"If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on
account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to
receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve
the unity of faith."
The
Reformers always intended to come back to the Catholic Church but it never
happened.
Many Christians today are
coming back to the ancient Church that Christ founded for us. It is the Church
that all our ancestors were part of.
“No ancient Christian writer- not Tertullian,
Origen, or any other-ever denied the apostolic succession or the authority
inherited by the bishops. That the Church had been established on the apostles
was a truth that no professing Christian would attempt to deny for at least
another thousand years, when the mistaken idea that the faith of Christ could
somehow be based on “Scripture Alone.” [p. 168 Kenneth D. Whitehead “One Holy
Catholic and Apostolic.”]
Back to www.StillCatholic.com
Quick Links:
Vatican
Website Vatican Radio Pope Francis twitter Jesus
Christ EWTN Catechism of the Catholic Church Bible (NAB-RE) Bible (RSV-CE) Catholic Encyclopedia St Pauls Publishing (St
Pauls facebook) U.S. bishops National
Catholic Bioethics Center Live
Christian Radio (K-LOVE) Catholic Answers Catholic Answers Forums National Catholic
Register ZENIT (Pope News) Catholic News Agency Catholic News
Service Catholic
World News Our Sunday Visitor Catholic Information Network www.MassTimes.org Saint Paul Center
for Biblical Theology Dr. Scott Hahn Jimmy Akin Mark Shea Patrick Madrid Amy Welborn Purgatory Heaven Hell Lent San Juan
Catholic Seminars Catholic
Reformation Natural Family
Planning Today’s
Mass Readings Doctors of the Catholic Church Real Presence Association Eucharist Catholic
Resources How to Say the Rosary The
Seven Sacraments “The
Confessions” by St. Augustine “City
of God” by St. Augustine G.K.
Chesteron “Summa Theologica”
by St. Thomas Aquinas The
Existence of God Catholic
Blogs Catholic
Culture Scripture Catholic Biblical
Evidence for Catholicism Catholic
Apologetics Network Fathers
of the Church The
21 Ecumenical Councils Saint
Peter Saint
Augustine Pope John Paul II Pope
Benedict XVI Pope
Francis Saints Mother Teresa of Calcutta St.
Padre Pio Famous
Catholics www.ThousandMiracles.com
Back to www.StillCatholic.com