Scripture[1]
I believe that the Bible presents an overwhelming case for sola Scriptura—not only because it has a strong history to back it up, but also it provides a strong case because it is the only book that can claim all of the following characteristics: accuracy in prophecy, influence upon the lives of humans, the unity of the books in describing the drama of creation and eternity, indestructibility against the attacks of those who tried/tries to destroy the Bible, Divine inspiration, the power to set people free from the slavery of sin, popularity, and reliability.[2] All of these characteristics are addressed in Scripture.
The power of sola Scriptura is revealed in Romans 10:17 when it comes to the authority of faith. When it comes to authority of faith, Romans 10:1 says, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”[3] Also when it comes to the power of prophecy, no other books can predict the future like the Bible.[4] Psalm 119:60 says, ” The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.” 2 Peter 1:19-21 says, “So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.”
We are also told to examine Scripture and be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). They used Scripture to verify the truthfulness of one’s teaching. According to the catechism of the Catholic Church, Roman Catholics are told to listen to the pope and the magisterium.[5] But if we leave humans to mediate, we open the doors for ourselves to be deceived.[6] 1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,…” Scripture does not give power to a select group of men (magisterium) to interpret to every man.[7] For example 2 Corinthians 4:2 says, “… but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” The magisterium distorts the Word of God by teaching unbiblical doctrines contrary to Scripture such as papal infallibility.
The Catholic Church claims to get its authority from Peter. It claims that Peter was the chief apostle and the rock that Jesus build His church upon.[8] This teaching is a result of a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 where Jesus said, “You are Peter (petros-stone) and on this rock (petra-mass of rock) I will build my church.” But upon analyzing this phrase, the Greek word “petra” is feminine and it is not normal to use it in reference to masculine Peter.[9] It is clear that Jesus was not referring to Peter as the mass rock because Peter was referring to Jesus as the “rock.”[10] Instead, he was the small rock. The mass rock is referring to Peter’s confession of faith, which he confessed after Jesus asked him, “Who do you say that I am?”[11] Moreover, the Catholic Church makes a big deal that Peter is the rock because he was the one that was in control of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13,19).[12] But upon looking at Acts 15:13, 19, it was James that was presiding over the council.
This is why the foundation cannot be found with Peter or the magisterium. The sole authority is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the head of the church. 1 Corinthians 3:11 says, “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Also Ephesians 1:22-23; 2:20 says that Christ is the chief cornerstone.
Another powerful claim that Scripture possess is the power of the Gospel. In other words, any born-again Christian possesses the keys to heaven. However, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus gave Peter and His successors authority over the church when Jesus offered Peter and His successors the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16:19. The church believes that Peter first opened heaven by proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7, 14)[13] This is a distortion of truth. Only by believing the Gospel can a person be loosed from his or her sins. And those who reject the Gospel will be bound to his or her sins.[14] Here is what Apostle Paul says about the Gospel, Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” And John 3:36 says, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
The Catholic Church makes another big claim when it comes to the pope being infallible in his teaching. But when you look to Scripture, their supposed chief pope, who is Peter was not infallible.[15] For example, Paul used the Gospel to show how Peter was wrong in Galatians 2:11-14, ” But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.” Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:23, “The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.”
The Catholic Church also makes much about the hierarchy or the magisterium. What we see in the Catholic Church is an enormous structure of monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and a pope that is ruling the people.[16] But here is what Scripture says in Matthew 20:25-26, “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,…'” Here is what Psalm 118:8 has to say about those who trust in the teachings of men rather than God, “It is better to take refuge in the Lord Than to trust in man.” Psalm 146:3-5 teaches that man is nothing compared to God. Man decays and dies, but God does not. That is why it is better to trust God first.
The Catholic Church also makes much of tradition. They teach that the Scripture cannot be without the aid of the traditions. In their mind, Scripture can only be accurately interpreted if tradition is used. First, in response, they must understand that the Bible teaches about traditions, but it does not mean the same thing as what the Roman Catholic teaches concerning tradition. The traditions that the apostles spoke about were in accordance with Scripture.[17] But the Roman Catholic concept of tradition is basically a separate source of revelation independent of Scripture and contradicts many doctrines in the Bible.[18] Their exalted view of tradition has led to the contamination of the Gospel. They teach a perverted Gospel message. Here is what Colossians 2:8 has to say when it comes to traditions, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition ofmen, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
Another notorious claim is the idea that the Catholic Church sees themselves as the “one true church” and states that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church (CCC, para. 846).[19] But Scripture define the true church differently. 1 Cor. 1:2 says, “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours…” Hebrews 12:23 says, …”to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect…”
Also the Catholic Church has made other crimes against God. Since their presupposition is rooted in tradition, the church has added other apocryphal books that are at odds with Scripture.[20] Roman Catholic Church needs to understand that the apocryphal books were not entrusted with the oracles of God. The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2).[21] And since their presupposition is rooted in their tradition, the Vatican divided the tenth commandment into two in order to replace the one they removed.[22] They deleted the second commandment. Deuteronomy 4:2 says this about those who delete His words given to Moses, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Since the Catholic Church is rooted deeply in tradition, they have adulterated the Gospel because they have allowed tradition to misinterpret the Gospel. This is dangerous because it affects the souls of men.
While discussing sola Scriptura, some Catholics bring up the issue of canonicity. They believe sola Scriptura is inseparable in this discussion. The outcry or the objection is that the 66 books are based on the Protestant councils and Catholic Church objects to the idea that there are only 66 books. As a result, since they claim that Protestants have no authority to say that the 66 books are inspired, sola Scriptura too, is not taught in the Bible.
The objections they bring up are fallacious because it misrepresents the Protestant understanding of canonicity. It is a straw man argument. Here are a couple of reasons of how they misrepresent the Protestant understanding of canonicity. First of all, the church does not determine the canon, but discovers the canon, the church is not the mother of the church, but is the child of God, the church is not the magistrate of the canon, but is the minister of the canon, the church is not the regulator of the canon, but the recognizer of the canon, the church is not the judge of the canon, but is the witness of the canon, the church is not the master of the canon, but the servant of the canon.[23] At the end of the day, the Catholic Church needs to understand that Almighty God providentially guided the canonical process. God is the One who determines the canon and Christians recognize it.
CONCLUSION
Because the Catholic Church does not believe in sola Scriptura, it ruins the Gospel of Christ in many ways.[24] Here are some of the ways they do that: baptismal regeneration and progressive justification, confirmation, penance, transubstantiation, papal infallibility, purgatory, and marion idolatry.[25] The Catholic Church has robed many in their understanding of God’s truth. I would say that if Apostle Paul was alive today, he would probably be in tears because of what this church has done to many people, negatively. Listen to the heart of Paul in Acts 20:29-31, “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.”
May we as Christians guard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and take heed to his warnings not only what he said in Acts but also what he wrote to the church in Galatia. Paul says in Galatians 1:6-11, ” I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. 11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.”
[1] All Scripture is quoted from the New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update.
[2] Mike Gendron, Preparing Catholics For Eternity (Springfield, Mo.: 21st Century Press, 2005), 10.
[3] Ibid, 11.
[4] Ibid, 11.
[5] Mike Gendron, Preparing Catholics For Eternity (Springfield, Mo.: 21st Century Press, 2005), 12.
[6] Ibid, 12.
[7] Ibid, 13.
[8] Ibid, 13.
[9] Ibid, 13.
[10] Ibid, 13.
[11] Mike Gendron, Preparing Catholics For Eternity, 13.
[12] Ibid, 13.
[13] Ibid, 14.
[14] Ibid, 14.
[15] Mike Gendron, Preparing Catholics For Eternity , 14.
[16] Ibid, 15.
[17] William Webster, Roman Catholic Tradition: Claims and Contradictions (Battle Ground, WA: Christian Resources, 1999), 15.
[18] Ibid, 15.
[19] Mike Gendron, Preparing Catholics For Eternity, 17.
[20] Mike Gendron, Preparing Catholics For Eternity , 18.
[21] Ibid, 18.
[22] Ibid, 18.
[23] David F. Farnell, “Canon of the New Testament” (lecture, The Masters’ Seminary, Sun Valley, CA, 2009).
[24] Robert Michael Zinns, “Why the Bible Alone?” A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism, http://www.cwrc-rz.org/whybiblealone.html (accessed December 1, 2011).
[25] Robert Michael Zinns, “Why the Bible Alone?” A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism, http://www.cwrc-rz.org/whybiblealone.html (accessed December 1, 2011).
But this church is responsible for compiling and authenticating the books of the Bible which will be later misused and abused by certain people to build their own so-called ‘Christian’ churches. If non-Catholic bigots and hypocrites claim the Catholic Church is wrong, who who among the non-Catholic churches are right? If you and other non-Catholic church say the Catholic Church is wrong, then the bible you have received is wrong too.
Hello Tyler, what is your understanding of the canon of Scripture?
Where do you derive the premise that “the Catholic Church is responsible for compiling and authenticating the books of the Bible?”
Where do you derive the premise that “the Catholic Church is responsible for compiling and authenticating the books of the Bible?”
=====
From the premise that someone more CAPABLE to decide doctrine, i.e., not the protestant church which isn’t even able to decide the meaning of scripture, must have compiled and authenticated it.
Weather someone is responsible or not to guard the word of God should be something you are familiar with from scripture. The question you need to settle is, who is that? Looking at the history of protestantism should tell you clearly that it isn’t protestants.
1.) “From the premise that someone more CAPABLE to decide doctrine, i.e., not the protestant church which isn’t even able to decide the meaning of scripture, must have compiled and authenticated it.”
Response: If by Catholic church you mean Roman Catholic Church, you still need to demonstrate why it is the RCC is the one who decide, and I think attacking protestant church isn’t going to help…moreover I think you can not even represent the Protestant position concerning the Scripture…you know you must a Catholic not understanding Protestants if you use language like “protestant church” “autheniticate” the Scripture. If you use that line again, I say you need to start familarizing yourself with an opponent’s position rather than engage in Straw man, since your argument would not even touch the heart of the Classic Protestant view of canonicity.
2.) “Weather someone is responsible or not to guard the word of God should be something you are familiar with from scripture. The question you need to settle is, who is that? Looking at the history of protestantism should tell you clearly that it isn’t protestants.”
Response: I’ve heard similar arguments before…from those outside of the communion of the Roman Catholic church. I’m afraid your arguments don’t follow…if we “look” at Protestant history, how does that lead to the Roman Church being the ones who “auhenicate” the books of the Bible? How do you handle the same line of arguments from other churches that are not Roman Catholic, say Eastern Orthodox or Egyptian othodox., etc?
Response: If by Catholic church you mean Roman Catholic Church, you still need to demonstrate why it is the RCC is the one who decide, and I think attacking protestant church isn’t going to help…
=====
Somebody had to decide. We get that part right? Let’s start with who it wasn’t. It wasn’t a bunch of men standing in a room who were not able to come to an agreement.
======
If you use that line again, I say you need to start familarizing yourself with an opponent’s position rather than engage in Straw man, since your argument would not even touch the heart of the Classic Protestant view of canonicity.
======
What, is there an official protestant position that I can familiarize myself with? Or do I need to dig into the recesses of each protestants opinion?
======
Response: I’ve heard similar arguments before…from those outside of the communion of the Roman Catholic church. I’m afraid your arguments don’t follow…if we “look” at Protestant history, how does that lead to the Roman Church being the ones who “auhenicate” the books of the Bible? How do you handle the same line of arguments from other churches that are not Roman Catholic, say Eastern Orthodox or Egyptian othodox., etc?
======
At least we are able to agree that it wasn’t protestants who settled it. That narrows it down quite a bit wouldn’t you say?
A general observation I note is how you have not carried your burden of proof of proving the Roman Catholic church is the one who gave us the canon. Moreover, just observing your comment makes me wonder if you even read this post. It’s easy to go around with a theological drive by, but it only makes you look ignorant if you go about it the way you have been commenting.
3.) “Somebody had to decide. We get that part right? Let’s start with who it wasn’t. It wasn’t a bunch of men standing in a room who were not able to come to an agreement.”
Response: So when did “they” come to an agreement on the canon? I think if we pursue the timing of when the canon was “determined” it would reveal a lot of problems that would be germane to this debate.
4.) “What, is there an official protestant position that I can familiarize myself with? Or do I need to dig into the recesses of each protestants opinion?”
Response: The fact that you do not even know there is a classic Protestant position is astounding. Moreover, if you were to say there is not a classic Protestant position on canonicity, you did not even bother with the position of Canonicity offered here by the writer. Riddle me this, what is the author of this post’s understanding of the canon? It’s stated here.
5.) “At least we are able to agree that it wasn’t protestants who settled it. That narrows it down quite a bit wouldn’t you say?”
Response: No, that does not settle it. First off, I think there is a logical fallacy committed here where pointing out someone else as wrong does not prove you are right. Secondly, the same argument you give is also the same ones asserted by the other ecclesiastical groups and does not prove the RCC as the originator of the Canon in of itself. Thirdly, again you engage in straw man, when you say that “it wasn’t the protestants who settled the canon.” This argument does not go anywhere in refuting Sola Scriptura (the subject of this post), because the Classic Protestant position (or at least the position held by EvangelZ) does not hold that it’s Protestants who determine the canon. Fourthly, concerning other churches who use the same line of arguments as you did, what is your response to them when they use this against you, would you say that settles it? I think not! Again, how do you handle the same line of arguments from other churches that are not Roman Catholic, say Eastern Orthodox or Egyptian othodox., etc?
To re-iterate again, you have not offered anything substantial to affirm your position, and what you have offerred has been problematic as what we have thus pointed out.
you know you must a Catholic not understanding Protestants if you use language like “protestant church”
=======
Is that because there isn’t ONE protestant church?
6.) I suggest if you quote me, quote me in context. I used the phrase “protestant church” in quote becuase I am quoting you, of what you said. I don’t use the language of “protestant church.” I also like how you did not quote me in it’s entirety of the sentence where I stated, “you know you must a Catholic not understanding Protestants if you use language like “protestant church” “autheniticate” the Scripture.” My point was that you import your Catholic understanding of an ecclesiastical group “authenicating” the Canon, something that is foreign to the view of Evangelz mentioned here.
7.) “Is that because there isn’t ONE protestant church?”
Response: That’s a rather cheap shot. Isn’t there more than one Roman Catholic church as well? Should I believe you and your group or should I follow Opus Dei? The same arguments you lob against Protestants for not being monolithic can also be lobbed against RCC.
To I did I did,
It appears you are reasoning ignorantly which is why you have not given us a proper definition of what I wrote concerning the Protestant (Christian) understanding of canonicity. I am wondering too, if you even read my post carefully.
Secondly, if you want to get somewhere with this topic instead of going on rabbit trails , I think what SlimJim said is correct, “I think if we pursue the timing of when the canon was “determined” it would reveal a lot of problems that would be germane to this debate.”
Thirdly, saying that Protestants didn’t determine the canon, which I agree, does so in no way, justify your argument that the Catholic Church gave us the canon. If you understand the position of my paper, you would understand who determines the canon.
Fourthly, you indeed, inherit a sham argument when try to destroy sola Scriptura with your proposition: “it wasn’t the protestants who settled the canon.” This will not help you if you argue this way. Like what SlimJim said, “proving something wrong does not make one right.” You still ignore, by not providing substantial evidence of how the RCC gave us the canon.
Fifthly, please provide substantial evidence in how you will respond to those who have their own understanding of canonicity (i.e. Eastern Orthodox, etc.).
I think what would help you in this debate is if you could answer these main topics for us since you like to bring up the topic of canonicity–even though the topic of this paper was primarily on sola Scriptura.
Please address these categories if you are willing and able. Also please provide substantial arguments, not fallacies.
1) Who determines canonicity?
2) When did canonicity take place?
3) Define canonicity.
4) Does canonical books exist separately from a group or human individual?
5) Is inspiration of Scripture a necessary condition for canonicity?
6) Is inspiration self-attesting and self-consistent?
There are probably more questions or topics I could bring up, but I think this is good for now. Thank you for your time.
To your first question of “Who” I would also add “when” did this take place; I think that makes the debate with our friend a bit more interesting =)
I agree SlimJim. Thanks for the insight.
[…] Sola Scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia: Part IIISola Scriptura Verses Sola Ecclesia: Part IV […]
Generally agree – except that a 66-book canon is a relatively recent invention with no historical basis, and is historically undefendable.
https://jmshistorycorner.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/the-canon-of-scripture-part-1-the-apocrypha/