Sola Scriptura is NOT Found in Scripture


imagesJJ: The Word SOLA SCRIPtura is a coined term by men, so is the label Roman Catholics…I find it amusing that you keep trying to keep everyone who isnt a CAtholic away and off by calling ALL other source of debate – SOLA SCRIPTURA….just because Christians Listened to the word of God, and keep to the bible, and not from Men, nor from Traditions, nor by Rituals nor by a so called High Priest, …When there only is one ~ God himself and Jesus Christ himself whom we should listen to and not get distracted by so many Man Made traditions and arguments just because The Roman Catholics was formed by the Emperor first to regulate this “religion”…Wake up…Read the whole bible and find out Love,…in its form and how God want us to OBEY…and not be like Pharisees and get stuck to own vision.

BFHU: I have read the Bible many times especially as a Sola Scriptura Protestant. I studied with a Greek Interlinear and Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words along with Strong’s and Young’s concordances.

I know what Sola Scriptura means. But it most certainly is a Tradition of Men, first pronounced by Martin Luther a mere 500 years ago. Sticking to the Bible Alone is a wonderful theory. It sounds like a good idea and one that would work. images-1

If I just read my Bible myself, the Holy Spirit will lead me into all Truth.

I agree it should work. The Holy Spirit could do that. It is a great Theory. However it has several problems:

1) It cannot be found anywhere in Scripture so it is self-refuting.
If the idea of sticking to scripture alone and not to Apostolic Teaching (Catholic Sacred Tradition), not rituals, not Pope’s etc is held so dogmatically by Protestants then why can’t they find this teaching in Scripture? Why are they so unconcerned that Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture? How can they criticize Catholics for not having everything in Scripture whey they don’t either?

2) The newest parts of the Bible were written nearly 2000 years ago.
The oldest parts of the Old Testament were probably written at least 3,200 years ago by men from cultures very different from our own. The Theory of Sola Scriptura falls apart and disproves its validity because a person in 2013 who sits down by himself with his Bible cannot accurately interpret everything in scripture unhinged from history and an understanding of the cultures in which the various books were written…unless of course it is true that the Holy Spirit will accurately interpret scripture for them despite ignorance of all these historical issues.

3) The Theory of Sola Scriptura is disproven because it has resulted in a chaos of conflicting interpretations in the hands of laymen and preachers.
And this has in turn, given birth to thousands of various Protestant denominations rather than unity of interpretation given to every Christian by the Holy Spirit. So, despite the fact that the Holy Spirit could cause every person who ever read Scripture to accurately understand it, He has not done this.

4) Protestant disunity, due to the belief in Sola Scriptura, is in direct opposition to Jesus
who said:
20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may [f]believe that You sent Me.

Peter & the Keys

John 17:22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

For more info—>Sola Scriptura is NOT Scriptural

Sola Scriptura & the Canon of Scripture


Scroll

Keith: 

I believe that your statement on June 13, 2012, that “there was NO INFALLIBLE CANON OF SCRIPTURE” prior to 400 AD when the Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church was probably a rhetorical overstatement. You would agree, I think, that a set of infallible books was possessed by the church prior AD 400, that their infallibility predated their canonization.

BFHU:

Yes, I agree. There was general agreement on the inspiration of most of the NT books that were eventually canonized. But there were different opinions and much discussion regarding other books. Some of which were later canonized and others that were not canonized.So my statement, that “there was NO INFALLIBLE CANON OF SCRIPTURE” prior to around 400 AD is meant to point out to those who believe in Sola Scriptura  that their ideas about scripture being the ONLY sure guide to faith is faulty and of very recent origin.

If they had been Christians who lived in 45 AD not a single NT gospel or letter had even been written. So how did these Christian follow Christ without a Bible?

If you were a Christian living in 100 AD all of the NT books were written and acknowledged as authoritative….along with many other gospels and letters. And to make things more confusing the Jews cut out seven books from the Septuagint OT b/c Christians were using them to good effect in making converts. So how did these Christians follow Christ without knowing which were which?

SCROLL LIBRARY

SCROLL LIBRARY

If you were a Christian living in 500 AD the scriptures had been canonized for 100 years but a full set of the books of the Bible was certainly not possessed by each and every Christian family. And, they probably still existed on separate scrolls since bookbinding was in its infancy. Besides most people could not read anyway. So how did these Christians follow Christ without having their own personal Bible? scrolls

If you were a Christian living in 1200 AD the Holy Bible had been canonized for 800 years but until some time after the invention of the printing press, the Bible, was an extremely costly book. At today’s minimum wages of $8/hr and only counting the time for one monk to copy the whole Bible, it would take 10 months at a cost of $16,640!!! But that doesn’t count the second monk who checked every single page for accuracy, which would raise the cost of one Bible in today’s US Dollars to $30,000 + And that still does not include the cost of materials, or

imagesfor the time for another monk to Illuminate (decorate) the pages and for someone else to bind the pages together and put on a cover.

At these prices it is easy to see why every person could not have their own personal Bible for study and devotions. It also becomes clear why Churches chained the Bible in the Church to prevent the theft of this precious possession used every day at every Catholic Mass. All colleges also chained their books in the Library and student had to go there to read them. So how did Christians follow Christ without having their own personal Bible until long after the invention of the printing press in 1450? And besides everyone could still not read.

And, still, even today,  20% of the world population cannot read even if they had a personal copy of the Bible. So how are they supposed to follow Christ according to the doctrine of sola Scriptura?

SOLA SCRIPTURA & THE BEREANS


Cost of a Bible Before the Printing Press


Reuben: Mary did not acquire any divinity, just because she gave birth to Jesus.

Bread From Heaven: We totally agree. Mary is only a human person. Anti-Catholic propaganda misinforms many Protestants that we think she is divine and that we worship her. But this is a lie.

Reuben: Catholics need to read the Bible, and let the Holy Spirit guide them to know the truth.  In the early days the Catholic Church did not want the common man to read the Bible, so that they could interpret the Bible according to their need.

Bread From Heaven:  I find your desire for people to “interpret the Bible according to need” troubling. Are you aware of the condemnation in Scripture of private interpretation?

2 Peter 1:20  First of all, understand this: no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted by an individual on his own;

A Catholic who goes to mass every Sunday will hear nearly the whole Bible in three years. And we do read the Bible as well. It is NOT true that the Catholic Church did not want the lay people to read the Bible in the early days of the Church. Once again you have been misinformed. In the early days of the Church:

1) Most people could not read.
-So the priest read the scriptures to the people. Which is still done
even though most people can now read and Bibles are cheap.

2) For the first 400 years of Christian history the Scriptures had not even been canonized so many different letters and gospels were read to the people. They did the best they could with what they could obtain. But some of these early writings were later not canonized. Even after 400 years (for reference the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock 400 years ago) every local church did not have in their possession every single canonized book of the Bible. There were no printing presses or books as we know them back then. Each book was a “book” in the form of a scroll.

3) Until some time after the invention of the printing press, the Bible, was an extremely costly book.
At today’s minimum wages of $8/hr and only counting the time for one monk to write the whole Bible, it would take 10 months at a cost of $16,640!!! But that doesn’t count the second monk who checked every single page for accuracy, which would raise the cost of one Bible in today’s US Dollars to $30,000 + And that still does not include the cost of materials, or for the time for another monk to Illuminate (decorate) the pages and for someone else to bind the pages together and put on a cover. At these prices it is easy to see why every person could not have their own personal Bible for study and devotions. It also becomes clear why Churches chained the Bible in the Church to prevent the theft of this precious possession used every day at every Catholic Mass. All colleges also chained their books in the Library and student had to go there to read them.

4) The idea of the necessity of Scripture alone for personal reading, salvation, and growth in holiness was a very late invention by Martin Luther etc. It could not be an eternal Christian principle because the majority of people, until the last several hundred years could not read. Even today, 20% of the world population cannot read. So, Our Heavenly Father, in His infinite wisdom and mercy would never have made salvation dependent upon personal reading of the Bible, as some Protestant sects seem to teach.

Reuben:  Nobody should be following the Church or a preacher blindly. Catholics need to understand that it is not important to view what the Church says or the Pope says; it has to be aligned with the Word of God.

Bread From Heaven: Believe me Catholics do not follow anyone blindly. There is NOTHING in our Faith than contradicts one thing in Scripture. Our faith only contradicts Protestantism and some of their individual interpretations. We follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, our Pope, and our Bishops because we are convinced that Jesus Christ Himself founded our Church on Peter the first Pope and the Apostles, the first priests and bishops. All the Protestant churches were started by men.

For more please see my post–>Why NOT the Bible Alone?

Are We Commanded to “Search the Scriptures”?


Sonya: When Jesus was on earth he always told the Pharisees to “search the scriptures” and always put the emphasis on the word of God not the Talmud. The teachings of the high priest down through the years.

Bread From Heaven: I don’t know what verses you are referring to. I don’t have a memory of Jesus telling anyone to “search the scriptures”. He did say this:

John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

Jesus seems to be rebuking them for not recognizing him even though they “searched the scriptures because (they) think that in them (they) have eternal life.”  And then Paul speaks of the Thessalonians as being noble b/c they investigated the truth of what Paul was teaching by searching the scriptures.

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

But neither of these are close to commands for everyone to “search the scriptures”.  Of course, reading and studying the scriptures is highly commendable. St. Jerome said,

“To be ignorant of scripture is to be ignorant of Christ.”

That is why the Church has read scripture at every mass for 2000 years. But, nothing in scripture exhorts all the faithful to search the scriptures. Even in Thessalonica, those who searched the scriptures were no doubt the religious leaders not the laymen. Neither they nor the laymen possessed their own personal copy of the Old Testament Scrolls. Nor could most people even read at that time. So, Protestants have taught that the “searching of the scriptures” is something much more than Jesus ever commanded or commended.

Did you know that 20% of the world population is still unable to read? The Protestant model does not fit the reality of history where Bibles could only be found in churches because they were so expensive, before the invention of the printing press and most people could not read even once Bibles became cheaper to produce. So, how could Jesus have meant to have Bible Study the foundation of the Faith?

Sonya:   Baptism…we already discussed this and to be honest your answer is lacking. Seems you trust the church over the Word of God. Especially since you believe this is part of salvation I would think you would want to stick to the way Christ showed us.

Bread From Heaven: Perhaps you are Baptist but, as a Protestant I was first baptized at about 12 years old by sprinkling in the Dutch Reformed Church. I was later baptized in a Baptist Church by full immersion and later baptized again in a swimming pool ( full immersion) for the gift of the Holy Spirit. So, even some good sola scriptural Protestants baptize without full immersion. But you are free to reject it. By the way, i was eagerly looking forward to being baptized in the Catholic Church but they would not baptize me because my first baptism was deemed to be valid.

Your interpretation of baptizo is correct but if such an exacting  interpretation was mandatory for the valid practice of baptism, it seems that Jesus would have clearly delineated the method and the gospel writers would have included these instructions rather than all depending upon  the translation of a word, especially if the doctrine of sola scriptura was at all understood to be in force.

Sonya: As a side note I would understand the decision (to baptize with pouring) with infants etc if that position made any sense. Are you saying that any aborted baby or miscarraige goes to hell because they have not been baptized?

Bread From Heaven: No. We leave them to the mercy of God. All we KNOW is that Jesus said:

John 3:5 “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

 Therefore we teach that baptism is necessary and not optional. But there are the exceptions, such as, Baptism of Blood ( martyred for Faith before baptism) and Baptism of Desire. So, we entrust the unbaptized to the mercy of God.

Sonya: Furthermore the Bible always puts believing before baptism…was the condition for the Ethiopian Eunich in Acts…If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest.

Bread From Heaven: True. But, the stories in Acts are of conversions of adults. And for a person who has reached the age of reason faith must come first before one can receive baptism in the Catholic Church. But we do have the story of the Jailer whose whole household was baptized. It was very likely there were children under the age of reason who were baptized. Scripture certainly did not make a point to enlighten us that they were all baptized except the little children. The baptism of babies is on the basis of the Parents’ faith. There is hope that the child will make a future profession of faith. But if there is none the baptism will not save them.

But from a Catholic perspective we are not bound by ONLY what is in scripture. We have the fullness of the Christian Faith with both the Bible and the Oral Teaching of the Apostles (Tradition) handed down to “faithful men able to teach.”

Once I became convinced of the importance of baptism as a Catholic I wanted to bring all seven of my children 7-21 years old into church to be baptized. But I was not allowed to do this. My children had to make a profession of faith first and then be baptized, after a year of instruction, I might add.

Sonya: I am sure as a protestant you heard of the innocence of children?

Bread From Heaven: Yes.

Sonya: One of the main supports of this when Paul says in one of his letters I was alive without the law once then the law came and I died. I believe this is clearly showing that we are not responsible for sin or “alive” until we understand between good/evil.

Bread From Heaven:  Agreed. This is called the age of reason but, of course, there would be differences for children with handicaps.