From: MX%"jrw@aracnet.com" 17-FEB-1996 To: NEMO Subj: Re: Sola Scriptura [e's a va'laszom] :nemo@ludens.elte.hu wrote: :>"Fr. John or Cheryl Morris" writes: :>> Where in the Bible does it say, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, or :>>Sola Scriptura? It does not. :>It doesn't say it literally. But it teaches both. :>Sola Gratia means that the only cause of our salvation is God's grace. :>Even if we co-operate with it, it is still grace. We can't add to it. :>Sola Fide means that we receive God's grace by faith alone. :>Even good works are the product of faith. :>Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is the only reliable :>source of divine revelation. Even if councils etc. are considered :>true by people who use this principle, it's because they are in :>accord with Scripture. :But those who *claim* Sola Scriptura can't come up with an authoritative :text! Sir, if you insist on Sola Scriptura, then you must show us where ;in the Bible it *says* that Scripture is the only reliable source of :divine revelation. First: Please don't call me "Sir". Being 22 years old, I'm embarrassed by it. Second: There are several scriptural passages that teach Sola Scriptura. For example Mark 7:6-7: "Well did Esaias prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far away "from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their teachings "commandments of men. See also Mt 5:1-20. Catholics tend to restrict the scope of application of these words to the Pharisees and to the Mosaic law. The reason for this is obvious: they see themselves characterized therein. Even the wording is similar to the Catholic terms, and the contents of these superfluous and man-made commandments are in a great deal similar to Catholic traditions. As Calvin truly pointed out: "Furthermore, they ridicule themselves when they imagine that those deep secrets which remained veiled from the apostles for a long time [and thus aren't contained in Scripture - FN] consisted of some Judaistic or paganistic regulations already widespread respectively among Jews and pagans, and of certain weird gestures and old-womanish rituals which can be performed even by simple-minded and unlettered priestlings very exactly..." Despite the inflammatory language, Calvin had a valid point then, and his thoughts are very relevant even now. Or 1Cor 4:6: "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to "myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to "think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up "on behalf of one against the other. This verse lays down a very important principle: that "what is written determines the border of our speculation". Or Deut 4:1-2: "And now, Israel, hearken unto the statutes and to the ordinances "which I teach you, to do them that you may live, and go in and "possess the land which Jehovah the God of your fathers gives you. "You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall "you take from it, that you may keep the commandments of Jehovah "your God which I command you. Another command, strictly forbidding every addition to the Law. You, as any Catholic, have the right to protest and ask: "Then aren't the Prophets in the OT?" But this question would be crude and a fairly wide shot. In the Prophets it was God who spoke, and He didn't forbid Himself to add to His own Word. Only those suspicious human additions were banned which are now commonly called "traditions". Or Prov 30:5-6: "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them who put "their trust in him. Don't add to his words, lest he reprove you, "and you be found a liar. A very important principle, giving a piece of advice to everyday life. To avoid error, we must cling to God's Word. Or Luk 16:27-31: "And he said: I beseech you, father, that you would send him to the "house of my father, for I have five brothers, so that he may earnestly "testify to them, that they also may not come to this place of torment. "But Abraham says to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them "hear them. But he said: Nay, father Abraham, but if one from the "dead should go to them, they will repent. And he said to him: If they "don't hear Moses and the prophets, not even if one rise from among "the dead will they be persuaded. A blatantly ignored passage which explicitly proves that the Scripture contains all wisdom necessary for the proper knowledge about God. My Catholic Bible translation, following the Jerusalem Bible, comments this verse with the words: "God governs men with the official organization, that is, the Church - Moses, Prophets -, and within normal circumstances He doesn't use extraordinary means to convince them." It is a lame misinterpretation, evidently caused by the inconvenience felt after the first reading. Even the translators knew that the term "Moses and the Prophets" denotes the Old Testament in the NT's usage. Or Rev 22:18-19: "I testify to everyone who hears the word of the prophecy of this book, "if anyone shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues "which are written in this book. And if anyone takes from the words of "the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree "of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. When Catholics are attacked with this famous exhortation then in defense they always interpret it as referring to the book of Revelation and not to the whole Bible. I often feel tempted to ask these courageous champions of Catholic faith: "So you don't allow anyone to add to the book of Revelation, but do you permit them to attach their fleshly thoughts to other books of the Bible?" That is, the issue here is rather the principle than a mere closing formula of a book. :Otherwise, you are relying upon tradition, and if you rely upon ANY :tradition, even that of a school of theology or Biblical interpretation, :then you are using Tradition in the same sense that Catholics and :Orthodox do! Perhaps you, when being a Protestant, couldn't refute this kind of simplistic argument, but I have some Catholic literature at hand (Denzinger selection of dogmas, Ludwig Ott's dogmatic book, etc.) and I can attest that you clumsily (pardon) transfer the erroneous Catholic and Orthodox notion of tradition to Protestants. For your information, Catholic tradition is alleged to be an additional source of revelation, according to the council of Trent, which says: "The council is aware that this truth and teaching are contained "in written books and in the unwritten traditions that the apostles "received from Christ himself or that were handed on, as it were "from hand to hand, from the apostles under the inspiration of the "Holy Spirit, and so have come down to us. The council follows the "example of the orthodox [meaning: proper-faithed; FN] Fathers and "with the same sense of devotion and reverence with which it accepts "and venerates all the books both of the Old and the New Testament, "since one God is the author of both, it also accepts and venerates "traditions concerned with faith and morals as having been received "orally from Christ or inspired by the Holy Spirit and continuously "preserved in the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 783. Quotation from: The Church Teaches, TAN, 1973.) Please, re-read this passage with extreme attention to the following phrases: ! unwritten traditions ... were handed on, as it were from hand to hand, ! from the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit... ...attributing divine inspiration to the Catholic tradition; and ! with the same sense of devotion and reverence with which it accepts ! and venerates all the books both of the Old and the New Testament, ! ... it also accepts and venerates traditions concerned with with ! faith and morals... ... giving tradition the same honour as Holy Scripture. Your naive argument about Protestants also having traditions immediately collapses when you are faced with the words with which Catholics praise and magnify their own traditions. Protestants, even allowing that they have traditions, never state that these things can be traced down to the apostles. They just say something like "if I am not mistaken, this verse indicates ...", or as Calvin once wrote: "worship is by no means compulsory to be held on Sunday, but for the decent order it is adviseable that the Church agreed on it." :Dispensationalism is a Tradition! If you say so... By the way, I am Hungarian, and here no one knows what dispensationalism is. Not even me. Thank you for labelling it a tradition. Now I see that even you make a distinction between various kinds of tradition. I happen to know that dispensationalism is not a Catholic doctrine. And you, calling it a tradition, allow me to conclude that your use of the word "tradition" isn't always affirmative. Sometimes even you seem to lapse into the Protestant wording which defines "tradition" as human additions to the Word of God, inferior to it, and in the need of correction if different circumstances come about. But I have to warn you that this usage is not too respectful towards Catholic traditions. Scripture, on the other hand, is pure and precious. I would never call an erroneous opinion "a Scripture". Your wording also proves that you can't deny that Scripture is superior to the tradition. >> The Church existed long before the canon of the New Testament was >> finalized. > >This proves nothing. Paul's letters were authoritative long before the >canonization. :But by whose authority were they considered authentic and authoritative? :The Tradition of the Church. Completely and hopelessly false. I can refute it... with a Catholic dogma! 1st Vatican Council, 1869-70 The source of revelation "Furthermore, acccording to the universal Church, declared by the holy "Council of Trent, this supernatural revelation is "contained in written "books and in the unwritten traditions that the apostles received from "Christ himself, or that was handed on, as it were from hand to hand, "from the apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so "have come down to us." Those books of the Old and the New Testament "must be accepted as sacred and canonical in their entirety, with all "their parts just as they are listed in the decree of the Council and "are contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate. THOSE BOOKS, HOWEVER, ARE "HELD TO BE SACRED AND CANONICAL BY THE CHURCH, NOT ON THE GROUND THAT "THEY WERE PRODUCED BY MERE HUMAN INGENUITY AND AFTERWARDS APPROVED BY "HER AUTHORITY; NOR ON THE MERE SCORE THAT THEY CONTAIN REVELATION "WITHOUT ERROR. BUT THEY ARE HELD TO BE SACRED AND CANONICAL BECAUSE "THEY WERE WRITTEN AS A RESULT OF THE PROMPTING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, "THEY HAVE GOD FOR THEIR AUTHOR, AND AS SUCH THEY WERE ENTRUSTED TO "THE CHURCH. Quite "Protestant-like" view of the divine authority of Scripture. Pay attention to the text in capital letters. You should study the decrees of the Church more carefully. >> You get your canon of the New Testament from the Holy >> Tradition of the Church. >The Church isn't the jailkeeper of the Scripture but the steward of >God's message. The Bible is the Word of God. Tradition is men's >thoughts about the Word of God. :Including Protestant thoughts about the Word of God! Yes. I am not infallible and if you bother yourself with giving some scriptural arguments which convince me of the erroneousness of my point of view then I'll be delighted to accept them. >> If you take the Bible out of its context, you >> only have part of the Christian message. >Yes. That's why we need teachers. :And how do teachers learn to teach? By studying Tradition. False. The correct way is studying the Holy Scripture. Paul in 1Tim 3:14-17 says to Timothy: "...Abide in those things which you have learned, and of which you "have been fully persuaded, knowing of whom you have learned them; "and that from a child you have known the sacred letters, which are "able to make you wise unto salvation, through faith which is in "Christ Jesus. Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable "for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in "righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted "to every good work. Ferenc