More on Sola Scriptura

[thessalonian]

Simple question from a Sola Scriptura perspective.

Let's start with an axiom of Protestantism:

"The Bible contains all that is neccessary for our salvatoin"

Then a common question Protestants ask Catholics:

Where's that in the Bible?

Now a verse:

John 5:39
You diligently study[ 5:39 Or Study diligently (the imperative)] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
(Whole Chapter: John 5 In context: John 5:38-40)

Thoughts?

Thess

[Brother Adam]

*giggles* remembering the days when I would argue with Catholics about that verse.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 13 2004, 07:20 PM'] *giggles* remembering the days when I would argue with Catholics about that verse. [/quote]

[God Conquers]

But lots of other "scriptures" testify about Jesus...

Should the Gospel of Thomas then be part of the bible?

[Archangel]

I've often wondered where non-Catholics got their canon of the bible since it is not found anywhere in scripture. If the bible contained all that is necessary for our salvation, then it should tell us which books are necessary too, right?

[Quietfire]

[quote]John 5:39
You diligently study[ 5:39 Or Study diligently (the imperative)] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
(Whole Chapter: John 5 In context: John 5:38-40)

Thoughts?[/quote]

Ok, so Im trying seriously to figure out how this is a Protestant arguement.

I am under the impression that it is not a command for everyone to read the Scriptures [i]only[/i](as in Scripture alone).
That it is essentially a rebuke to the Pharisees. (and any others who rely on Scripture alone as a means of obtaining everlasting life)
Only because they would read the Scriptures, thinking that within them(scripture)and ONLY them, they would find eternal life, but yet would not listen to those who gave testimony of Christ.

And because they 'listened' to Scripture alone, they put Scripture above God.
So simply put they claimed to love God, yet they had not the love of God in them.

Christ told them He(Christ) came in the name of the Father, but they wouldnt receive Him. But if anyone else came in their own name, they would be received.

(Jn 5:42)You seek glory from one another, but not from God.

The Scriptures gave testimony of Christ again and again, and yet when He was right in their face....they denied him.


I still cant see this as a Protestant arguement. Especially since they do as the Pharisees do. Rely only on Scripture and Scripture alone.

Did I miss something?


Pax

Edited November 15, 2004 by Quietfire

[vianney316]

In John 5:29, Jesus is drawing a contrast between claiming to be faithful to the Scriptures but missing the whole point of the Scriptures.

I don't think we could draw the conclusion that the Scriptures offer eternal life or are all we need to have eternal life. I don't think any Protestant would really believe that they have eternal life through the Scriptures (the absolute literal meaning of the words)....no one is saved by the Bible. We are saved by Jesus Christ and His grace through faith working in love. Jesus says in the next passage:
"and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."

This is not an argument for sola scriptura at all, but Jesus is rebuking those Jews that put all their trust in righteousness through the Law and claimed fidelity to the Scriptures yet rejected Him, the focal point of all the Scriptures. Life is not in the Bible, but in Jesus Christ...the Scriptures point to Him. Those Jews felt secure because the had the Old Testament...and Jesus was saying they were missing the whole point...

Hope this helps.

[Quietfire]

That was my arguement as well.

But to clarify something....
[quote]I don't think any Protestant would really believe that they have eternal life through the Scriptures (the absolute literal meaning of the words)[/quote]

there are many christians who believe in the Bible alone (literally) as the only source of their salvation(eternal salvation)




Pax

[Briguy]

John 5 KJV:
32] There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
[33] Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
[34] But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
[35] He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
[36] But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
[37] And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
[38] And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
[40] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
[41] I receive not honour from men.
[42] But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
[43] I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
[44] How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
[45] Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
[46] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
[47] But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
John.6
[1] After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
[2] And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.


John 5 NASB:
32 "There is (38) another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.
33 "You have sent to John, and he (39) has testified to the truth.
34 "But (40) the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.
35 "He was (41) the lamp that was burning and was shining and you (42) were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.
36 "But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for (43) the works which the Father has given Me (44) to accomplish--the very works that I do--testify about Me, that the Father (45) has sent Me.
37 "And the Father who sent Me, (46) He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 "You do not have (47) His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He (48) sent.
39 "[2] (49) You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is (50) these that testify about Me;
40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
41 "(51) I do not receive glory from men;
42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves.
43 "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; (52) if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.
44 "How can you believe, when you (53) receive glory from one another and you do not seek (54) the glory that is from (55) the one and only God?
45 "Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is (56) Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for (57) he wrote about Me.
47 "But (58) if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

Hi Thess. saw this thread and could not resist. Many things going on in these scriptures. Like all verses, used alone it can be deceiving. Read in context it is pretty straight forward. I included the NASB version for easy understanding. There are different “witnesses” going on here. John was a witness of Jesus, the Father is a witness of Jesus and our works are a witness for Jesus and scripture is a wit. Nothing here points to the scriptures being insufficient for salvation. All that is being said here is that the Pharisees (or the non-believing audience this is directed to) looked to the scriptures and did not find salvation because they did find Jesus. Jesus said that they were searching the scriptures and even though the scriptures pointed to him they were unwilling to come to him (v. 40) In verses 46 and 47 Jesus makes this clear by saying Moses wrote of Him and they did not believe the writings (scripture) and they will not believe His words either. Verse 39 is not that scriptures do not now contain all that’s needed for salvation
But that folks searched the OT scriptures but did not believe what they read, especially about the coming Messiah. Scripture in verse 39 is referring to the OT and not finding salvation is in regards to not “coming to Christ”. I will stop there as I tend to ramble and repeat myself. Thess. I saw this from one quick reading and did not look at a commentary or anything. The context is very important. Hope your Thanksgiving was great!

In Christ,
Brian

[mark3200]

I won't weigh in on this fully, as I used to argue against sola scriptura prior to becoming Catholic. Once I made the switch and examined the case against sola scriptura, the Church made much, much, much more sense.

One note, though.....I joined because the Church doctrines make sense logically and scripturally. Most Protestant doctrines do not (at least from my limited perspective). I purposely left Protestanism, because they couldn't address the logic of my questions. Won't and can't have that.

To me, sola scriptura is just plain silly. Yes, I've read all the Bible verses. Got it. BLUF: it's still silly.

[Briguy]

Mark, give me a shot at a question you feel was not answered properly. I love logic and, in fact, argue all the time from a logic perspective. Go ahead and fire questions to me, one at a time of course and lets see what happens. Take care and good to meet you!!

In Christ,
Brian

[mark3200]

It's not that I have unanswered questions (quite the opposite, actually). I suppose I'm trying to say "nicely" that I left protestantism because of issues like sola scriptura. And when I tried to get solid protestant answers, I received a circular argument.

OK, typical illogic went like this (different topic this time):
me: how do I know I'm forgiven?
them: you just know
me: what do you mean? can you give me a scripture reference?
them: um...believe and receive.
me: OK, but how do I know I've received? do I get a delivery notice from FedEx? What?
them: well, you're supposed to have this nice feeling...
me: a nice feeling?
them: yes
me: can you be more specific?
them: not really

And around it would go. It was frustrating. Extremely frustrating. Needless to say, reconciliation was wonderful! To have someone with the very authority of Christ absolve my sins right in front of my eyes was (and is) awesome!

I was staunchly in favor of sola scriptura, until my wife asked me one simple question, "Mark, does the Holy Spirit continue to work and talk to mankind?" That was all I needed. To me, if the answer is "yes," then I can't stick to my guns about Bible and nothing else. If I said, "no," then I denied the very existence of God as I knew it.

At least, that's how my version goes....

[Briguy]

Hi Mark, I'm sad to know that someone would answer as you said. I am hoping you are exagerating some but I fear you are not. Just so you know, I attend a church that is non-denominational. I don't think of myself as anything but a Christian. Our current pastor was ordained in California at John MaCarther's (sp? - I have a mind blank on how to spell his name) church. Many kids from our church go to Moody Bible College. We are a little too fundamental at times for me but overall it is a church which only teaches direct Bible messages.

Anyway, I am still willing to answer direct questions if you choose to pose some. Things like forgiveness, grace etc... are fair topics. BTW, I know I am forgiven because God said I would be if I confessed my sins to Him. If God says it directly and he is perfect then it is something I can be assured of. Confession in 1 John 1 is between the person and God. I know we can debate who the audience of 1 John 1 is but either way initial confession leads to righteousness.

Let me ask you a question based on what you said. You said that you can be absolved by a priest (actually, you said by someone given authority by Christ). Biblically speaking a priest must be a believer and be bound for heaven or he is not a priest. Ok, so my question is: What if the priest is not a believer and is just faking it? I believe there are priests, pastors, ministers, in all types of churches who are not "saved" people. They may confess with their lips but it is the change of heart that makes a believer. So, even if the "church" (CC that is) gives the person authority to forgive sin, how could he forgive sin when he doesn't meet the biblical test for a priest. And along with that, if he is not a believer he has no Holy Spirit within, no spititual gifts, no godly discernment, etc... --- yet he can tell you, a follower of Jesus, that your sin is forgiven, when he is not forgiven himself, and with no HS guideance he can give penance (no clue how to spell that). I know you have heard that type of thing before. Hopefully I have presented it in a more logical fashion. Looking forward to your respone and to answering your questions.

Mark, may God bless your day!!,
Brian

In light of the priest scandalls of recent years I think it is safe to say there are priests who fall into the "not saved" category. I guess for my argument it only takes one faking priest to make my argument valid.

[thessalonian]

Excuse me for stepping in men.

"Biblically speaking a priest must be a believer and be bound for heaven or he is not a priest."

Judas was not an Apostle? Where in the scriptures did Jesus say "you eleven" and the Apostles say, um, Lord there are 12 of us. Jesus choose Judas as an Apostle Brian. He cured the sick and cast out demons when Jesus sent them out on their first mission. Sorry Brian. Bad logic.

Praise God Eucharists can still be consecrated and sins forgiven regardless of the sinfullness of the priest. Further, we know in the confessional that Christ is there hearing our words and our sorrow for our sins and so it matters little if the priest is sinful. He is just the means Christ uses to get us to acknowledge our sins before God and man. This is hard for you to grasp I know but Jesus did not stop Judas from doing works in his name. You also have the same problem. Can someone get saved if they accept Jesus as their PLS through the preaching of someone who later goes off with the assistant pastors wife? Are all those sermons he preached a bunch of hooey?

By the way, this is a good time to resurrect that trusted friend arguement. Could Jesus call someone who was not saved in some sense "friend whom I trusted"?

God bless

Edited December 1, 2004 by thessalonian

[CatholicCrusader]

Brian--

Answer these for me:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/Protstnt.htm"]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/Protstnt.htm[/url]

Moreover, if you enjoy logic, can you make a logical argument for the fact that none of the early Christians believed as you do, and they all believed specifically as Catholics. And since Christ founded His Church in AD 33 and not 1517, how is it that the correct religion could have come about 1500 years after Christ?