I believe the scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith.
If this belief of yours is correct today, then it also must have been true since the foundation of the Church. But let's think about it for a minute. The NT books were still being written up to 60 years after Pentecost. The Apostles were preaching the gospel and folks were being "born again" for many years before all of the books of the NT had been written. If Scripture alone is the infallible rule of faith then that means the Early Church had NO rule of faith!
Does the bible make this claim for itself? I would say yes Both Christ and the apostles viewed scripture, and scripture alone as the unerring word of God. That Jesus held scripture in the highest regards is evident from these statements
No one is denying that Jesus held Scripture in the highest regard. So does the Catholic Church which has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerates the Body of the Lord. But to draw from that the conclusion that Scripture ALONE is the only infallible rule of faith is nonsense. What about Jesus Himself? Was Jesus not infallible? Are you placing Scripture above the Word of God incarnate? At the time of Jesus, only the OT existed which although containing divine teaching was imperfect and provisional in certain matters. That is why Jesus could say:
Matt5
21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
What is really interesting about these verses is that Jesus begins each of them by the words: "Ye have heard" and not "Ye have read"This naturally implies that the Jews DIDN'T read and interpret Scripture for themselves as "Sola Scriptura" believers today hold as a necessary element of Christianity. They listened to the Torah by the priest as he passed on and interpreted teaching that came from God. (Dt 33:10, Mi 3:11, Jr 18:18, Ex 7:26, Dt 31:9;26)
Hosea 4:6
My people ar destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
Jeremiah 2:8 The priests did not say, "Where is the Lord?" Those who handle the law did not know me; the rulers transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Baal, and went after things that do not profit.
"the scripture cannot be
broken "
john 10:35, not the smallest letter, not the least stoke of a
pen, will by any means disappear from the law
until everything has been accomplished Matt 5:18, it is easier
for heaven and earth to disappear then for
the least stroke of pen to drop out of law Luke 16:17, heaven
and earth will pass way,
but my words will never pass away Matt 24:35, Jesus even
asserted that greatness in heaven will be
measured by obedience to scripture Matt 5:19.
Mark 7:8-9 you have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the tradition of men. Vs 9 you have a fine way of setting aside the commands in order to observe your own tradition.
Now go to Vs 13 and we see Jesus disputed with the Pharisees their view of tradition Jesus proclaimed thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition. Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable.
Once again you have cited a few verses from the bible and then formed a false conclusion from these verses. Since Jesus condemns some of the traditions of the elders and Pharisees, you wrongly conclude that He is making a blanket condemnation of ALL tradition. But that is wrong. Jesus actually recognized and followed some traditions Himself. In Mt 23:2-3 we see Jesus speaking and acknowledging 'Moses' seat' and the authority that went along with it. You can search the scriptures all you want but you won't find any evidence of this in the OT. Tradition per se wasn't the problem. It was only traditions that go against God's commands which were condemned.
Further in Matt 22:29 you are in error because you do not know the scripture.
Still no proof that Scripture ALONE is inspired.
scripture does not get its
authority from the church, it gets it from the very word of the
living God 2nd Tim
3:16
lets not forget what Paul said to young timothy in 2nd Tim 3:15
Ah yes...2Tim 3:16 once again. I will never understand why Protestants continue to try and use this verse to prove "sola scriptura".
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Let's begin with the first several words:
All scripture is inspired by God
The first thing
you must notice is that this verse reads "All
Scripture" and not "Only Scripture". Big
difference. If I were wanting it to support "sola
scriptura", it would have to read, "ONLY scripture is
inspired of God", which it doesn't. The
following statements should make this clearer:
All scripture
is inspired. All Italians are human beings. TRUE
Everything
inspired is scripture. All human beings are Italians. FALSE
Next, we have to read the verse in context. If we read one verse back, we see that the scripture which Paul speaks of is the OT only.
2Tim 3
15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
The only scripture which Timothy could have known since he was a child was the OT. So if you wish to use 2Tim3:16 to support "sola scriptura", then you must also hold that the OT alone is our only infallible rule of faith. If we fall back another verse, Paul actually seems to tell Timothy to hold to what he was taught in person and not by a written letter alone.
14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
This seems to go hand in hand with what Paul had told Timothy earlier in the letter:
2Tm: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
Now on to the next several words:
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
Protestants seem to always miss that Scripture is being described as being only "profitable" and not "sufficient" as they claim. Take a bodybuilder for instance. Lifting weights is profitable for him so that he may be complete and ready to compete in the Mr. Universe Contest. But if this bodybuilder neglects his diet, his tanning and his aerobic activity, he may never win a trophy. In a similar statement, Scripture also seems to say that perseverance makes us perfect. :
James 1: 4 And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
Does this mean that perseverance alone is sufficient?
that the man of God may be complete
Paul speaks of the "man of God" here. In other words, the person who profits from Scripture already has been born again through baptism and grounded in the faith by the Apostles oral teaching. The word "complete" or "sufficient" is used to describe the "man of God", not Scripture.
equipped for every good work.
Wow, here's the clincher. What is it that Scripture is useful for? For equipping us for every good work! Did you get that?! According to some Prots, good works aren't necessary for our salvation, therefore the bible itself isn't necessary either if we follow their logic. St. James makes it clear that the man of God is justified by works and not by faith alone. That is why he could also say that perseverance makes you perfect...the perseverance he was speaking about was perseverance in GOOD WORKS! So instead of proving "sola scriptura", 2Tim 3:16 actually upholds the Catholic teaching on salvation. But that's a topic for another day.
2nd thess 2:15
stand firm and hold to your teachings we have passed on to
you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. Paul is saying
to hold on to your teachings that we have taught. I don't
think Paul would contradict Jesus do you?
Neither do I. Therefore, your interpretation of the verses which you cited were incorrect as I have already shown. Paul CLEARLY states that we are to hold firm to what he taught orally and what he wrote. I have yet to see one Protestant actually ATTEMPT to give a correct answer to the Prot Pickle question. The question asked for one citation from Scripture where Jesus or an Apostle changed Paul's command in 2Thes2:15 so that we are told that at some later time we would only need to stand firm in the written word alone because it would contain all that was taught orally previously.
Come to think of it Paul was a Jew so what tradition are we to hold to?
The same ones that he commands us to hold to in 2Thes 2:15.
i will hold to the scripture SOLA SCRIPTURA
Then you are holding to a "tradition of man" which isn't found in the bible and therefore must be rejected as a teaching which nullifies the word of God.
Have you ever heard of Maximinus
the Arian? Maximinus lived during the time of St.
Augustine(A.D. 354-430) and was one of the greatest defenders of
the Arian heresy that ever lived. Arians believed
that Jesus is of a divine nature, but not that He is fully God
because he was created and therefore rejected the orthodox belief
in the Trinity. Besides have a great ability to manipulate
Scripture to his advantage, Maximinus was a great speaker as
well. Just like "Sola Scriptura" believers today,
Maximinus refused to use anything other than Scripture alone when
defending his heretical views and felt that Scripture alone was
the only rule of faith. Maximinus debate with St.
Augustine was a "classic" because of the fact
that it mirrors so many Catholic/Prot debates today. As you
will see from the excerpts of St. Augustine's debate with
Maximinus below, there are many similiarities between the
arguments that he used and the ones that you used today.
Maximinus, Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c.A.D. 428) AAOH. [taken from Not By Scripture Alone pg 430-432]
If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, 'In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts'(Mt 5:19)
"I state this on the basis of the scriptures. At your bidding, I will follow up with testimonies [from the scriptures]"188"But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle nd superfluous."196
"And I profess in accord with the statement of the divine scriptures..."197
"After all, we are protected not by mere talk, but by the testimonies of the divine scriptures."202
"All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2Tm3:16). For that reason, 'not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.' (Mt 24:35)"213
"That, if you state this [ie. the doctrine of the Trinity] from the divine scriptures, if you produce any passage of scripture, we are eager to be found disciples of the divine scriptures."219
"We believe the scriptures, and we venerate the divinel scriptures. We do not want a single particle of a letter to perish, for we fear the threat that is stated in these divine scriptures, 'Woe to those who take away or add!' (Dt 4:2)"208
St. Augustine, in defending the one true faith, appealed to Scripture along with Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. By doing so, he was merely following the explict directions given by the bible itself which requires 3 witnesses to establish truth.
Deut 19:15: One witness alone shall not take the stand against a man in regard to any crime or any offense of which he may be guilty; a judicial fact shall be established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Mt:18:16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Heb:10:28: He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
By adhering to Scripture alone as your witness to substantiate your claims, you are actually going against what the bible itself teaches.
Frank Jerry
The Catholic Legate
October 26, 2005
The following
email was sent to me by a gentleman who read Guy's answer to the
Prot Pickle question posted above and wished to make some
comments of his own about it.
This is in response to what Guy wrote:
"scripture
does not get its authority from the church, it gets it from the
very word of the living God 2nd Tim 3:16"
"lets not forget what Paul said to young timothy in 2nd Tim
3:15"
2Tim. 3:16-17 reads, "16All scripture is inspired by God
and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for
correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent,
equipped for every good work." - NAB
The first 2 words are "All
Scripture..." Protestants somehow, without any
Biblical support (ironically), equate Scripture with Bible.
So they usually claim, "see, Scripture says the Bible is
inspired" We all know that the Bible includes the
NT. So let's examine what St. Paul is actually talking
about. In the 2 verses before (2Tim. 3:14-15) Paul tells
Timothy "14 But you, remain faithful to what you have
learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred
scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for
salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." -NAB
It is reasonable to think that St. Paul knows what
scriptures he is referring to. And it is also reasonable to
think that the scriptures he mentions in verse 15 are the same
scriptures that he mentions on verse 16. Now, since Paul is
writing this letter to Timothy, and we know Timothy is a young
man (1 Tim 4:12) we know that the scriptures that Paul mentions
to Timothy do not include his letter to him. That means
that Paul himself did not consider his own writing to Timothy to
be scripture, because the scriptures that Timothy has known from
his infancy, are already written. Therefore, St. Paul, when
writing to Timothy and mentioning the scriptures is actually
referring to the OT. Therefore, if 2 Tim. 3:16-17 proved
anything, it would prove too much, namely, that the only
scripture that is "capable of giving you wisdom for
salvation through faith in Christ Jesus", would be the OT.
Furthermore, that would mean, based on 2Tim. 3:16-17, that
the OT would be all that is needed "so that one who belongs
to God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
Again, just my 2 cents.
God Bless in your ministry.
Ramiro