Reference Section: Sola Scriptura

[phatcatholic]

phatpham,

this thread is where you will post all the arguments, articles, books, websites and other info you can find that illustrates how sola scriptura is not defended in the Bible. Note: scripture verses in support of tradition will be in another thread when we move on to Sacred Tradition. for now, use this as a place to show how no verses support SS, and the ones people use to support it don't actually support it at all.

thanks,

phatcatholic

[Dave]

http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/q2.htm

To Tell You The Whole Truth

about the Church

and

the Holy Bible

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions Often Asked and Answers

SCRIPTURE ALONE (Sola Scriptura)

Some say, "Everything one needs to believe in order to be saved is in the Bible," or "God has revealed everything in the Bible alone."

Let us take a look at some scripture passages which some use to make this point. Then we will comment on the passages.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16)

Comment: It says, "All scripture... is profitable." It does NOT say "All scripture is sufficient." If we take Paul's statement to mean that the scriptures were all that were needed, then we would have to reject the New Testament, since the scriptures Paul referred to were Old Testament (probably Septuagint) only. He was writing about A.D. 67. Most of the New Testament was not written yet, and the final decision as to what books make up the New Testament was not made until 300 years later.

"And consider that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation - as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Comment: Peter is indicating that Paul's writings are part of the Scriptures. But the scriptures of the New Testament were not decided upon for another 300 years.

"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)

Comment: It does NOT say that we need ONLY what is written. It says that these are written that we might believe.

"He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?' " (Matthew 15:3)

Comment: Jesus condemns human traditions or customs which undermine Christian truths. He is not referring to truths handed down by Tradition in the Church.

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." (John 5:39)

Comment: Jesus was referring to the Old Testament only, since the writing of the New Testament was not even started yet. Jesus was saying that He fulfilled the Old Testament.

What does the Bible say? Does the Bible say that Tradition is needed?

"And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

Scripture does not record everything that Jesus did. So, Tradition was also necessary.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus told His disciples to BAPTIZE AND TEACH - He does not command that anything is to be WRITTEN.

"He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." (Luke 10:16)

"Hears" implies that the message of Jesus was to be proclaimed by word of mouth - Oral Tradition.

"So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)

The Gospel was preached and heard.

"But the word of the Lord endures forever. Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you." (1 Peter 1:25)

Again, the gospel was preached orally.

"And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: 'Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.' " (Acts 15:7)

Peter preached the gospel, and the Gentiles heard and believed. There is no mention of something being written down and Peter giving it to them.

"And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' " (Acts 20:35)

This quotation of Jesus is not in the Gospels, and must have been told to Paul - Tradition.

"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 1:13)

"And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Timothy 2:2)

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

God reveals to us what is necessary for our salvation through Scriptures and Tradition. That is what the Bible tell us.

But how do we know that the interpretation of the Scriptures and Tradition we are taught is the TRUTH?

Jesus has taken care of that too. He has given us a Church, and the Church is the guardian and interpreter of the Scriptures and Tradition.

"... it has now been revealed by the Spirit, to His holy apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 3:5)

"having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20)

"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth" (John 14:16-17)

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)

"... the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)

The truth has been revealed by the Spirit principally to the leaders in the Church. They, with Christ, are the foundation of the Church. The Church is guided in the truth by the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of Truth. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. The leaders of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, guide us in the truth. Scripture and Tradition need each other, and both need the Church to protect, preserve and interpret them. Consequently, Scripture alone is not enough. Scripture can be misinterpreted. The Bible itself does NOT say that it is the ONLY source of revelation. It says that BOTH Scripture and Tradition are the sources of revelation. Scripture says that Jesus Christ founded a Church. He promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. He promised that the Holy Spirit - Spirit of Truth - would be with His Church. The idea of Scripture alone was introduced in the 1500's. The idea had never surfaced during the previous 1500 years.

We must remember:

Paul never uses the phrase "Scripture alone"

Paul does not tell Timothy to write anything down.

Paul does not say that he himself wrote everything down.

Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

The Christians, for the first approximately 400 years had NO New Testament to study. These people learned from oral instructions. Besides, very few could read.

Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, ... teaching them..." (Matthew 28:19)

He did not say, "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations... write a book that will contain everything that they need to know in order to be saved." The basic essentials are contained in Scripture. But, God in His loving generosity gives us so much more through Tradition.

[phatcatholic]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT

the following is an exerpt from Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy by Patrick Madrid

<SOLA SCRIPTURA> IS UNBIBLICAL

Consider the Old Testament. The principle of <sola scriptura> is utterly alien to the way in which God dealt with his people before Christ. Besides the fact that no Scripture of any sort was available before Moses' time [apart from occasional, terrifying incidents of direct revelation <en masse>, commands were mediated

to his people through prophets and patriarchs). No Israelite was free to practice private interpretation of the Law, deciding for himself how he believed the text should be interpreted. Imagine someone telling Moses, "Look, I read Genesis 17 differently. I think God was speaking about circumcision here figuratively. He

wasn't literally telling Abraham to take a knife and start cutting things." The Old Testament contains no hint of <sola scriptura>.

The New Testament is the same. Not only does Christ institute a teaching Church (Matt. 28:19-20), endowed with his own authority (Luke 10:16; Matt. 16:18, 18:18), but we nowhere see the notion of "Scripture alone" in the teachings of any of the apostles or any of their successors. In fact, we even see examples of a preference for imparting teachings orally and not in writing: "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12; c.f., 3 John 13).

The fatal flaw of <sola scriptura> then is that it is itself not taught in Scripture. The <Westminster Catechism> says: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (6). If this statement is true, then the doctrine of <sola scriptura> must itself be "expressly set down in Scripture, or ... deduced from Scripture."

And that's the rub. By asserting <sola scriptura>, Protestants are making the concomitant assertion that all divine revelation necessary for the Church to possess comes down to us in Scripture alone. The Anglican Reformers put it this way: "The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that <whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby>, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" (<The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion>, 6).

More specifically, as the <Westminister Confession> explains, to be divinely revealed, a doctrine must be explicitly expressed or logically implied in Scripture. And that leads us to the question of formal and material sufficiency.

Many eminent Catholic theologians and doctors down through the centuries, including most of the Church Fathers, have taught that Scripture is materially sufficient4 (i.e., it contains all the material or "stuff" of divine revelation, either in explicit or implicit form).5 The problem is that Evangelical Protestants who venture into patristic literature in pursuit of ammunition for their position, come away with a faulty understanding of what the Fathers meant. Newman observed this problem in a letter to an Anglican friend: "You have made a collection of passages from the

Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrines that the whole Christian Faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of my words, Catholics contradicted you here. "6

We must make a distinction here in order to understand the critical difference between the material sufficiency of Scripture taught by the Fathers and the Reformers' much narrower notion of formal sufficiency. At certain levels, the Catholic position intersects with the Protestant formula of <sola scriptura>. But

the fundamental difference is this: The Catholic Church holds that in order for the meaning of Sacred Scripture to be properly understood, the Church must have recourse to its living Tradition-i.e., the infallible interpretation of the apostolic <depositum fidei> (c.f., <Dei verbum>, no. 10). And this interpretation is guaranteed by an infallible Magisterium.

The Reformation creeds, while paying an ostensible limited respect to Tradition, Church councils and the Fathers, nonetheless refuse to accord them infallibility. Protestants claim that Scripture is sufficient <in se> and, ultimately, does not require an infallible Tradition or Magisterium in order to be authentically interpreted. In contrast, the Catholic model for authority is tripartite-Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are distinct yet mutually interdependent (<Dei Verbum>, nos. 9-10). <scriptura, Traditio> and <Magisterium> may be summarized in this way: <scriptura> is the object of the Church's interpretation; <Traditio> is the Church's lived interpretation of Scripture; and <Magisterium> is

the organ of the Church that does the interpreting.

But the Protestant understanding of scriptural sufficiency pushes beyond mere material sufficiency into the province of formal sufficiency. Formal sufficiency means that all revelation necessary for the Church to possess is presented formally in the pages of Scripture, with nothing else needed-no Tradition or

Magisterium. This nuance-and make no mistake- it's a very important nuance, is where the failure of <sola scriptura> occurs.

Another problem for <sola scriptura> is the canon of the New Testament. There's no "inspired table of contents" in Scripture that tells us which books belong and which ones don't. That information comes to us from outside Scripture. Our knowledge of which books comprise the canon of the New Testament must be

infallible; if not, there's no way to know for sure if the books we regard as inspired really are inspired. It must be binding; otherwise folks would be free to have their own customized canon containing those books they take a fancy to and lacking the ones they don't. And it must be part of divine revelation; if it's not it's merely a tradition of men, and if that were so, Protestants would be forced into the intolerable position of championing a canon of purely human origin.

These facts don't square with the classic Protestant creeds, for example the <Westminster Confession>, which asserts that, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture ... yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." This is pure Mormonism-the old "I know it's inspired because I feel in my heart that it's inspired" line that Mormon missionaries use. As a proof for the inspiration of Scripture, this bromide is useless.

<Sola scriptura> becomes "canon" fodder as soon as the Catholic asks the Protestant to explain how the books of the Bible got into the Bible. Under the <sola scriptura> rubric, Scripture exists in an absolute epistemological vacuum, since it and the veracity of its contents "dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or

church." If that's true, how then can anyone know with certitude what belongs in Scripture in the first place? The answer is, you can't. Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the Magisterium, endowed with Christ's own teaching authority (c.f., Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18; Luke 10:16} guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:13), and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Timothy 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not. As soon as Protestants begin to appeal to the canons drawn up by this or that Father, or this or that council, they immediately concede

defeat, since they are forced to appeal to the very "testimony of man and Church" that they claim to not need.

It's important here to say a few words about some of the scriptural arguments raised by Protestants in defense of <sola scriptura>. The verse most often raised is 2 Timothy 3:1 6- 17, yet this passage is a minefield of difficulties for <sola

scriptura>. Here Paul tells his young episcopal protege, Timothy, that "All scripture is inspired by God (Greek: <theopneustos> = "God breathed") and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." The conclusion drawn is that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that the Bible is sufficient in all matters of Christian doctrine and practice because it will make the man of God equipped for "every good work."

But notice the Greek, <pasa graphe theopneustos.> This means "each" or "every" Scripture is inspired. This complicates matters further for Protestants. For if Paul is pointing to sufficiency in this passage, he's designated each book of Scripture as sufficient in itself for the tasks he goes on to outline. But that of course is not what Paul is saying.

In one of my public debates on <sola scriptura>,7 a Protestant apologist attempted to make his case for the formal sufficiency of Scripture by using an analogy of a bike shop. He argued that just as the bike shop contains all the necessary accouterments for bike riding and can fully equip a bike rider, so too Scripture is sufficient to "fully equip" the man of God. Unfortunately for his case, this analogy, although superficially plausible, is faulty. The bike shop may provide all the necessary equipment, but the customer must first know how to ride a bike to make use of that equipment. This is analogous to the Christian knowing how to

correctly use Scripture. Bike shops can certainly equip their customer with all the necessary paraphernalia, but don't teach him how to ride.

My debate opponent tried to get around this by countering that 2 Timothy 3:17 says that the "man of God" is made fully equipped by Scripture, so there is no question that he'll know how to use Scripture correctly. But the problem with this argument is that it provides no sure way to determine who is a "man of God" and who isn't. Protestantism is so divided over central doctrinal issues (e.g. infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the nature of justification, salvation, divorce and remarriage, etc.), that this "man of God" argument only begs the question. <All> Protestants believe that they've embraced the "correct" interpretation of Scripture, but doing so includes the implicit assertion that all the other denominations don't have the correct interpretation on all things. If they did, why the need for denominations? The answer to the Protestant claims of formal sufficiency in this

passage is that Paul is not trying to establish Scripture as the sole, sufficient thing that renders the man of God fit for these tasks. Rather, he is reminding Timothy of several things that, combined with God's grace and Timothy's faithful diligence, will

make him so equipped.

There's also the lexical argument based on the Greek of 2 Timothy which argues that because Scripture will make the man of God "<artios>" (suitable) and "<exartizo>" (thoroughly furnished), it therefore is sufficient. But this argument fails for several reasons.

First, with regard to what Scripture says about itself, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 merely says that Scripture is <ophelimos>, which means "useful" or "profitable." Paul's use of the Greek terms <artios> ("suitable" or "correct") and <exartismenos> ("having been furnished") does not imply the sufficiency of Scripture, on purely

lexical grounds. Although some Greek scholars note that <artios> and <exartizo> could mean sufficient, we must do our best to understand their actual meaning based on the context of the passage. A telling fact is that no major Bible translation, not even those produced by the most ardent supporters of <sola

scriptura>, renders either <artios> or <exartismenos> "sufficient." Furthermore, the "sufficiency" hermeneutic Protestants use in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 fails when applied to similar passages.

For example, in 2 Timothy 2:19-21, Paul exhorts Timothy to cleanse himself from all that is not holy and virtuous, saying that doing so will make him "ready for every good work" (v.21). The exact same Greek phrase is used here as in 2 Timothy 3:16: <pan ergon agathon> ("for every good work"). Under the "sufficiency" hermeneutic used by Protestants to defend <sola scriptura> in 2

Timothy 3:16, Paul would here be made to say that one's personal efforts to become purified from sin are "sufficient." But this is an absurd conclusion.

We can see the same absurdity in the Protestant argument arise when it's applied to James 1:4: "And let [your] perseverance be perfect (<teleion>), so that you may be perfect (<teleioi>) and complete (<holoklepoi>), lacking in nothing (<en medeni leipomenoi>)." This passage uses far stronger language than that found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and goes far beyond the mere implication of sufficiency Protestants want to see in this verse, by the explicit statement that perseverance will make you "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." If any verse in the Bible could be used to argue for "sufficiency" James 1:4 would be it. Under the hermeneutic employed by the proponents of <sola scriptura>, in this passage James would be saying that all one needs is perseverance (the context is perseverance in suffering and good works!). This would mean that mere perseverance is sufficient, and such things as faith, grace, prayer, repentance, even Scripture, are unnecessary. Again, an absurd proposition, but that's what

this form of Protestant argumentation leads to, not only here in James 1:4, but also in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Some Protestants wind up committing a lexical fallacy in their attempt to ward off the obvious implication of James 1:4 and 2 Timothy 2:19-21. They claim that because the word <teleios> is used in James 1, not <artios>, the two passages cannot not be compared. But the fact is, the primary meaning of <teleios> is

"complete" or "perfect." It's a much more forceful word for indicating perfection or completion than is <artios>, which primarily means merely "suitable" or "fit."8 And if the <artios/exartizo> argument proves anything, it proves too much. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows that <artios> and <exartizo> modify "the man of God" (<ho tou theou anthropos>), not "Scripture" (<graphe>). Scripture does not claim sufficiency for itself here. It says it completes and makes fit the man of God. So, at best, this argument proves only that Scripture makes the man of God sufficient.

The context of this epistle is Paul's general instructions to Timothy on how to be a holy and pastorally effective bishop. Besides Scripture, Paul appeals to oral tradition (as he does in other epistles) as a source for apostolic doctrine "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who

will be able to teach others also" (2:2; cf. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15). He alludes to this oral teaching two verses earlier: "But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it" (3:14). In 2 Timothy 2:15 Paul advises Timothy to "rightly divide the word of truth." Contrary to the common Protestant assumption, the phrase "word of truth" is not restricted to Scripture alone, but includes oral tradition as well. For example, in Ephesians 1:13 end Colossians 1:5 "the word of truth" refers specifically to Apostolic

Tradition, not Scripture.

There are many other scriptural arguments Protestants use, but in the interest of space, we'll simply discuss a few briefly.

Matthew 4:1-11 : The passage where Jesus rebukes the devil with the phrase "It is written," referring to Scripture. Protestants see in this and other "It is written" passages a vindication of <sola scriptura>. "See!" they say, "Jesus did not appeal to Tradition or the Church or anything else, but to Scripture. That means that Scripture is sufficient to settle all issues." But that's not at all what this verse means. Notice first of all that in this same Passage Jesus reminds the devil of the passage, "man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Not

all of God's words are contained in Scripture. Besides Christ who is the Word of God (John 1:1,14), some of God's words come down to us in oral fashion (c.f., Acts 20:27; Gal. 1:11-12, 15-16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:2). Christ does not say nor does he imply a "scripture alone" approach to truth in this passage. Rather, he

reminds us that we are to cling to and live by every word that he speaks, not just the written words contained in Scripture. Notice too the implicit warning here. The mere quoting of Scripture is not enough to establish one's truth claims, since here we see the devil himself (mis)quoting Scripture! That's why Peter warned

that, "In [Paul's epistles] there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

In the year 434, Vincent of Lerins reflected on this problem: "If one should ask one of the heretics who gives you this advice, 'How do you prove [your assertion]? What ground have you for saying that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He has the answer ready: 'For it is written.' And forthwith he produces a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy.... Do heretics

appeal to Scripture? They do inDouche, and with a vengeance. For you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture .... Whether among their own people or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavor to shelter under the words of

Scripture.... You will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old" (<Commonitoria> 25,26,25).

Acts 17:10-11: "Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews. These Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the Scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so."

This passage is appealed to as evidence that it is more "noble" to go by whet Scripture says, than by whet even apostles themselves preach orally. But this is not so.

First, remember that these Jews were called noble mainly because they did not riot upon hearing Paul's claims for Christ's divinity, as did the Jews of Thessalonica (cf., Acts 17:1 -8). The Berean Jews were docile and willing to check to see if Paul's claims squared with Scripture. After all, he was preaching the Gospel to the Jews, and urging them to check these things out for themselves in what had by then become the "Old" Testament (cf. 17:2-3). Using Scripture was certainly appropriate when dealing with Jews, who revered and believed in Scripture, though it was futile to use when preaching to Gentiles, who had no appreciation

for Scripture. That's why we don't see Paul or the other apostles typically using Scripture in their apostolic work among the Gentiles, and sometimes we see an appeal to pagan writings to make his point, when necessary! (cf. Acts 17:22-32).

Besides, the apostles were charged with teaching the Gospel to all creatures (Matt. 28:19-20), and this magisterial office included the task of interpreting Scripture. When the apostles taught, whether in writing or orally, God was teaching through them (Luke 10:16; 1 Thess. 2:13).

Revelation 22:18-19: "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book; if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy City described in this book." Protestants

argue that Catholic Tradition is "adding" to Scripture. But this passage refers to Revelation itself, not Scripture in general. After all, Scripture, compiled definitively as a single "book," would not be known by the Church until the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419).

There's also a problem for this argument in light of Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, where the Israelites are warned to neither add nor subtract anything from the teachings contained therein. The same sort of warning in Revelation 22 is found in Deuteronomy, yet any Protestant will admit that it doesn't prohibit the adding of all

the books of the Old Testament that follow Deuteronomy and all of the New Testament to the canon of Scripture.

Edited December 9, 2003 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/2tim316.htm

2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Sola Scriptura by James Akin

Advocates of the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory) have a problem.

If the doctrine of sola scriptura is true then we must be able to prove all doctrines from Scripture alone. If that is true, then we must be able to prove sola scriptura from Scripture alone. If we canot do that then sola scriptura turns out to be self-refuting, an idea that cuts its own basis out from under itself, like the proposition "No generalizations are true."

As a result, there is a great rush to find verses in Scripture which can be used to prove the theory of sola scriptura. These attempts are typically made by one of two kinds of advocates for the doctrine--the careless and the careful. The former are, of course, the great majority. Most advocates of sola scriptura, like most advocates of most ideas, are careless in how they support it and will press even the most tangential of things into service as proof that the idea is true.

Careless advocates of sola scriptura are no different and will assert all kinds of irrelevant passages as if they proved the doctrine.

For example, passages in the gospels where Jesus is being questioned about some doctrine by his enemies and, in answering them, he points their attention to some passage in the Old Testament. This kind of verse can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine).

Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general. And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources.

The idea that Jesus -- the living Word of God who came to bring us new revelation via his oral preaching and teaching -- would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved only by the written word of God is absurd on its face, yet this does not stop the careless advocate of sola scriptura from appealing to instances where Jesus uses Scripture to prove an individual doctrine as if they were proof Scripture is able to validate all doctrines whatsoever.

Careful advocates of sola scriptura -- those who try to limit the verses they appeal to in support of the doctrine to only those that have some hope of being relevant -- are as rare as hen's teeth. But those there are recognize that they have a greatly diminished number of passages to appeal to in support of the doctrine once the obviously irrelevant passages are cut away from the debate. In fact, they recognize that there are really only one or two passages which have any hope of being looked to as support for sola scriptura.

The one which has the best hope is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states:

"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" (Revised Standard Version).

Some who appeal to this passage appeal to the first clause of it -- "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching" -- were sufficient to establish sola scriptura. Sometimes the appeal takes the form of an emotive appeal to the fact that the text says all Scripture is inspired by God -- better translated as "God-breathed" -- as if Catholics did not also believe that Scripture is written by the verbal inspiration of God.

Ultimately, however, the appeal to the first clause is fruitless since it merely says that Scripture is profitable or useful (Greek, ophelimos) for teaching, not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology. A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven only by hammers (as anyone can testify who is lucky enough to have a nail gun or unfortunate enough to have had to drive a nail with a random blunt object which was at hand).

A more careful appeal to this passage would look to other parts of it instead, for example, the last clause, which focuses on the idea that "the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

One anti-Catholic I know built his case on the Greek words used in this passage for "complete" (artios) and "equipped" (exartizo), which he interpreted to mean "sufficient." He was able to cite one lexicon that listed "sufficient" as a possible translation of artios and one lexicon which listed "sufficient" as a possible translation of exartizo, but there are major problems with his argument.

• 
  
  
• The two lexicons that used the term "sufficient" listed it as a third or forth translation of the terms, not as the primary translation, and one cannot appeal to possible meanings of a term as proof that it does mean something in a given text, especially when they are third or fourth string possibilities for its meaning.
  
  
• All the published Protestant Bible versions (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) agree that "sufficient" is not the correct translation of these terms in this instance. None of them render the passage "that the man of God may be sufficient, sufficient for every good work." In fact, none of them use "sufficient" as a translation of even one of the two terms.
  
  
• There is such a thing as hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point), and it is a common Hebrew idiom and a common feature of Paul's letters. For example, in Colossians 1:20 Paul states that God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself through Christ. But obviously he does not mean absolutely all things or he would have to say that God reconciles Satan and the damned to himself through Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19, Eph. 1:10). Thus Paul's statement that Scripture makes a minister one complete may be no more than a typical Hebraic hyperbole.
  
  
• Absurdities result if we take the principle that he uses to interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and apply it to other texts. The principle is: "If (X) makes you complete then you don't need anything other than (X)" (hence his reasoning, "If Scripture makes you complete then you need Scripture only"). If we apply this principle to James 1:4, which states, "And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." If we applied the principle to James 1:4 we would have to say that we do not need anything other than steadfastness, including Scripture!
  
  (One might object that James 1:4 the Greek words are not artios or exartizo. This is certainly true; the words in that passage are teleios and holokleros, which are even stronger Greek terms. The objection would also commit a basic translation fallacy by assuming that a difference of term always means a difference of concept -- it doesn't -- and, in any event, nobody is going to be able to build much of a case for the meaning of either artios or exartizo based on New Testament study since the first term occurs only once in Scripture and the second only twice [the other occurrence being in Acts 21:5], making meaningful Scriptural comparative studies of the usage impossible).
  
  
  
• The two terms modify the man of God, not Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:17 says Scripture helps makes the man of God complete and equipped, not that Scripture itself is complete and equipped. In order to prove that Scripture is sufficient, the advocate of sola scriptura would have to argue backwards from the sufficiency of a man to the sufficiency of a collection of documents. This puts an extra layer in the argument and thus an extra layer of exegetical uncertainty.
  
  
• This layer of uncertainty is even more problematic for the advocate since to say something helps make a man complete and equipped can presuppose that he already has certain other pieces of equipment. For example, if a man is going on a hiking trip and he has all the equipment he needs except a canteen. He then goes into a sporting goods store and buys one. When he does, he says, "There. Now I am complete, equipped for all of my hiking adventures." This does not at all imply that the canteen alone was all the equipment he needed to be completely furnished. It was only the last piece of equipment. The statement that it made him complete presupposed that he had all the other equipment he needed. In the same way, the statement that Scripture works to complete the man of God can presuppose that the man of God already has certain other articles in his possession that pertain to doctrine (such as the oral teachings of the apostles).
  
  
• Even if a single source does give a person all the equipment he needs, this does not teach him how to use the equipment. He may need training in how to use his equiptment. Just because a person has all the tools he will need to survive in the woods on a hiking trip does not mean he knows how to use the tools. In the same way, even if Scripture gives one all the basic equipment one needs to do theology, it may be unclear to the point that one needs to use Apostolic Tradition to arrive at the correct interpretation of it.
  
  In fact, this is a permissible position for Catholics to hold. The claim that Scripture contains or implies all the basis data for theology is known as the material sufficiency of Scripture, and it is a perfectly acceptable position for Catholic theologians to hold (cf. Yves Congar's work Tradition and Traditions), so long as one does not move to the position of claiming that Scripture is so clear that one does not need Apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium to interpret it -- a position known as the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which is identical with the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Thus a Catholic can say that Scripture gives one all the equiptment one needs for theology, just not the background one needs to use the equiptment.
  
  
  
• So even if one could show that the words artios or exartizo means "sufficient" in this passage, and even if he could show that it applies (directly or indirectly) to Scripture, all this would prove is the material sufficiency of Scripture, which a Catholic can be happy to admit. It does nothing to prove formal sufficiency (the sola scriptura theory).
  
  
• In fact, the text says that Scripture will make the man of God complete -- it completes a clergyman, not an ordinary layman. A clergyman is someone who has special training -- for example, his knowledge of the Apostolic Tradition which enables him to correctly interpret Scripture. The text thus presupposes a knowledge that the man of God already has before he even approaches Scripture.
  
  
• But apart from these considerations which deal specifically with the hypothesis being advanced in connection with the terms artios or exartizo, there are positive reasons why this passage, no matter what translation of these terms is given, cannot be used to prove sola scriptura...
  
  

To begin with, in the opening clause of the passage, the phrase "All Scripture" is normally taken by Evangelicals to mean "All of Scripture" -- in other words, a reference to the whole of the canon of Scripture, which coextensive with what a Protestant wishes to make normative for theology. This is natural for a Protestant since he things of the term "scripture" in the singular as a reference to the entire Bible and nothing but the Bible. But that is not the way the term is used in the Bible itself.

The ability to refer to the Bible as a unified work is an invention of the age of moveable type. Prior to the existence of the printing press, Scripture was at best a set of individual, bound volumes. In the first century, when Paul was writing, it was a collection of several dozen scrolls. There was no way it was conceived of as a unified literary work, as it is today.

As a result, a study of the way the New Testament uses the term "scripture" reveals that whenever the term is used in the singular -- "scripture" -- it always refers to either a specific book of Scripture or a specific passage within a book. It never refers to the whole of the corpus of works we today refer to under the unified title of "Scripture." When the Bible wants to refer to the whole of the corpus, it always uses the term in the plural -- "the Scriptures," never "Scripture."

Knowing this, we should be clued in to the presence of a mistranslation in the opening clause of 2 Timothy 3:16. Since the singular term "Scripture" is always used for an individual book of passage of the Bible, the phrase "All Scripture" would mean either "All individual book of the Bible" or "All individual passage of the Bible" -- neither of which makes grammatical sense.

And when we turn to the Greek of 2 Timothy 3:16, we find that there is, inDouche, a mistranslation. The phrase rendered "All Scripture" is pasa graphe, which means "Every Scripture" -- they key word being "every," not "all." This is an important distinction, and it makes grammatical sense of the phrase, given our knowledge of what the singular term "scripture" means (for "every individual book of Scripture" and "every individual passage of Scripture" certainly make grammatical sense).

Had Paul wanted to refer to the entire corpus of Scripture, he would have used a different Greek phrase -- something like hai pasai graphai ("the whole of the scriptures"), not pasa graphe, which means simply "every scripture" (a fact which even some of the biggest advocates of using 2 Timothy 3:16-17, such as anti-Catholic James White, have admitted).

This is important because it makes it totally impossible to use the passage to prove sola scriptura, because if one tries to use it in that way it will prove way too much.

Since the passage says "Every Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc.," if this proved the sufficiency of Scripture, it would actually prove the sufficiency of each passage of Scripture for theology or at least the sufficiency of each book of Scripture for theology. This would mean that not only would the Bible as a whole be enough to prove every point of theology, but each individual passage or book would be sufficient. So you could do theology not only by Scripture alone but by Matthew alone or by Mark alone or Luke alone or what have you. You could do theology sola Matthew, sola Mark, sola Luke, or, to go to the shortest books of the Bible, even sola Jude or sola 3 John if you wanted.

But that is clearly absurd. No single passage, and no single book, of Scripture contains all that we needs to know to do theology. As a result, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot be used to prove sola scriptura. If it could, it would prove way more than sola scriptura. Paul is simply saying that each individual scripture contributes to the man of God being prepared for all of his ministerial tasks, not that each individual scripture is sufficient to do all of theology.

Furthermore, the idea that these verses prove that we should look to Scripture alone clearly takes them out of context. Whenever Protestants quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17, they almost always leave the previous two verses out of their citation. This is unfortunate since if we read the passage with the two preceding verses we get:

"14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

16 Every scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Paul tells Timothy to remain in what he has firmly believed and then cites two bases for that belief:

• 
  
  
• He knows from whom he has learned it. This was the oral teachings of the apostle Paul himself, so right here we have Timothy's beliefs being based on apostolic Tradition.
  
  
• From childhood Timothy has been acquainted with the holy Scriptures. So this is the second basis for Timothy's beliefs.
  
  
  

Thus, right here in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, we have a double appeal to both apostolic Tradition and apostolic Scripture. So when Protestants come and quote verses 16 and 17, they are only quoting the back half of a double appeal to Tradition and Scripture, clearly something that does not prove sola scriptura.

Finally, all of the points we have listed, simply by virtue of their number, constitute a case against the advocate's basing sola scriptura on 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The reason is that the thing that differentiates sola scriptura from the Catholic material sufficiency option is that sola scriptura claims that not only does Scripture have all the basic data one needs for theology but that this data is also sufficiently perspicuous in Scripture -- that is, sufficiently clear -- that one does not need outside information, like that provided by apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium, in order to correctly interpret Scripture.

The fact that we have been able to name so many factors undermining the use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- any one of which is fatal to attempts to use the passage -- shows that the passage is sufficiently unclear that sola scriptura cannot be proved from it. Even if one were not convinced by anything we have said, if even one of the considerations we have named is recognized as a valid interpretive option then the passage is not sufficiently clear to prove the doctrine and thus canot be used to do so.

And since, as we noted at the outset, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the passage which has the best chance of being relevant to the issue of sola scriptura, the fact that it is not sufficiently perspicuous to show the doctrine shows that there aren't any passages in Scripture that are perspicuous enough to prove sola scriptura and thus that Scripture is not sufficiently perspicuous for sola scriptura to be true.

Edited December 9, 2003 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

here's one more:

Sola Scriptura? Not According to the Bible

[phatcatholic]

okay, i'm sorry, but this site i just found pretty much beesh-slaps Sola Scriptura

http://www.catholicoutlook.com/bible.html

enjoy,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

here's the portion from the previous link that is relative to this particular thread:

A Treatise on Sola Scriptura: Part One--The Evidence for Sola Scriptura

[phatcatholic]

Dialogue on the Bereans

Did the Noble Minded Bereans Believe in Bible Alone?

Edited December 10, 2003 by phatcatholic

[Lil Red]

Logical Problems with Sola Scriptura

Logical Problems with Sola Scriptura

It should be clear from the preceding section, but it bears repeating, that in all that we will now say about Sacred Scripture, we are not belittling it. Scripture is central to our knowledge about Jesus and his life and teachings, and it quite rightly holds a singularly honored place among Christian writings, as being the Word of God, and not just a relfection of that Word. The point to be made is not that Scripture is worthless-- far from it-- but that those who believe in sola scriptura (scripture alone) are implicitly belittling the whole of God's revelation by making it subject to their own personal beliefs.

It is unfortunately true those who claim to believe only in Scripture do, though they are not consciously aware of it, believe in something beside Scripture. The reason is that the belief in sola scriptura (scripture only) is itself extra-scriptural: nowhere does Scripture claim to be the sole rule of faith.

In countering this observation, some cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

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.

Interpreting this passage to indicate Scripture in this way has serious deficiencies:

It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the Sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: some of the Catholic Epistles were not written even when St. Paul wrote this, and none of the Books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and if the argument from the passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith. (Newman, Inspiration, 131n.)

Lacking a scriptural foundation, sola scriptura is self-contradictory in fact. But even deeper, sola scriptura is also a self-contradiction in idea. Everyone who attributes any meaning to Sacred Scripture believes implicitly in something other than Scripture: an interpretation of Scripture. Thus sola scriptura does not really mean believing in scripture only, but in believing only in one's own interpretation of scripture. In this way, the mighty rallying cry of `back to basics' becomes a cover for casting off authority in scriptural interpretation, instead relying on individual interpretation: `me and my Bible.' This movement has a great appeal for our modern age (particularly for Americans) who daily live and move within a culture overrun by individualism and rejection of authority.

The danger of individual interpretation does not confine itself to the individual, but flows out to threaten the whole of Christ's Church since Christians become divided from each other when they lack a unifying doctrinal voice. Scripture itself testifies that obtaining a true interpretation is not an automatic certainty:

There are some things in them [the letters of Paul] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16)

Inevitably, differences of interpretation develop. Each group of Christians closes itself off from admitting the possibility that any one else could know better and comes to rely soley on its own interpretation. As time advances, further differences develop, and foment further division, until the only thing left is a multitude of individualistic feudal fiefdoms, the pulverized remains of the compact unity of the one Church founded by Christ, and for which Christ prayed:

I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. (Jn 17:20-23)

Furthermore, when the unity of Christ's Church is weakened, the Church herself is weakened. As the unity of believers is lived less, the light of Christ within the world radiates more dimly. The whole of human society suffers a gradual loss of belief. Thus, ``belief in scripture alone'' transforms itself into ``being alone, believing scripture.''

[Lil Red]

From Scripture Catholic:

I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates tradition. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James also appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

II. "All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignnore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola scriptura, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

III. Other Passages used to Support "Sola Scriptura"

John 5:39 - some non-Catholics use this verse to prove sola scriptura. But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the Protestant claim of sola scriptura.

John 10:35 - some Protestants also use this verse "Scripture cannot be broken" to somehow prove sola scriptura. But this statement refers to the Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture and the New Testament.

John 20:31 - Protestants also use this verse to prove sola scriptura. inDouche, Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus, but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary, to be saved by Jesus.

Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola scriptura.

Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase "don't go above the line" was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don't go above line, Paul is instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, this proves too much because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

Rev. 1:11,19 - Non-Catholics sometimes refer to Jesus' commands to John to write as support for the theory that the Bible is the only source of Christian faith. Yes, Jesus commands John to write because John was in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was Jesus' usual command). Further, such a commandment would be limited to the book that John wrote, the Book of Revelation, and would have nothing to do with the other Scriptures.

Rev. 22:18-19 - some Protestants argue against Catholic tradition by citing this verse, "don't add to the prophecies in this book." But this commandment only refers to the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible which came 300 years later.

Deut 4:2; 12:32 - moreover, God commands the same thing here but this did not preclude Christians from accepting the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy or the New Testament.

[cmotherofpirl]

Title: A Response to 'Evangelicals, Catholics, and Unity'

Author: Art Kelly

Description: Michael Scott Horton, Ph.D., President and Chairman of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (formerly Christians United for Reformation) and co-moderator of the White Horse Inn radio program, has written a booklet explaining why Protestants cannot be united with Catholics. Art Kelly demolishes his position in this defense of Mary, the Papacy and Purgatory. He proves that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.

Categories: Institutions > Papacy

Catholicism > Faith > Apologetics

Publisher & Date: Original, 09/04/02

Michael Scott Horton, Ph.D., President and Chairman of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (formerly Christians United for Reformation) and co-moderator of the White Horse Inn radio program, has written a booklet explaining why Protestants cannot be united with Catholics.

The booklet has been praised by Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man radio program as the "best booklet that he's ever seen" on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Dr. Horton says the Catholic Church "proclaims a false Gospel" and "cannot be considered a true visible church, for it has surrendered the most necessary mark of the true church, namely, the Gospel itself, by which alone we pass from spiritual death to new spiritual life."

Among other reasons, he mentions Sola Scriptura, the Papacy, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Purgatory.

In regard to justification, Dr. Horton is obviously unfamiliar with Chapters 7, 10, 16, 18, 19, 25 of the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapters 8 and 10 of the Gospel of St. Mark, Chapter 10, 13, and 15 of the Gospel of St. Luke, and Chapter 5 of the Gospel of St. John.

The Catholic Church that has always emphasized the message of the gospels, while some other religions have ignored the clear words of Jesus.

Sola Scriptura is really the blank check that allows Protestants to profess anything they want, no matter how un-Biblical. For Dr. Horton and his followers, it's "every man for himself" in determining what each verse of Scripture means.

This has resulted in a plethora of competing Protestant denominations. As St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 14:33 indicates, Sola Scriptura cannot possible be from God.

Of course, Jesus did leave a teaching authority (Gospel of St. Matthew 28:20) and it is the Church which is "the pillar and ground of the truth." (1st Timothy 3:15)

Of all the various issues mentioned by Dr. Horton, the Papacy is actually the most crucial difference between Catholics and Protestants.

A person who believed the Catholic Church was correct on justification, Purgatory, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and every other issue would still have a good reason to remain a non-Catholic if he or she believed the Church was wrong on the Papacy.

On the other hand, if the Bishop of Rome is, in fact, the successor to St. Peter as the divinely appointed Chief Steward of the Church, then the Reformation should never have happened.

Dr. Horton rejects as "arrogance" Paragraph 882 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says, quoting Vatican II:

"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Dr. Horton thinks that papal supremacy is based on "Rome's appeal to tradition" but "is contradicted by much of that tradition."

He's wrong on both counts.

The Papacy is based on Scripture. And history is crystal clear that Bishop of Rome exercised primacy in the Catholic Church from the first century onward.

The Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18-19 (in conjunction with the Prophecy of Isaiah 22:20-22), the Gospel of St. John 21:15-17 (in combination with the 2nd Book of Samuel 5:2 and the Prophecy of Ezekiel 34:23), and the Gospel of St. Luke 22:31-32, among many, many other quotations from the Bible prove that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and made St. Peter the first Pope.

Some examples of how the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was exercised in the first few centuries after Jesus:

Pope Clement (88-97) wrote to the Church in Corinth in the year 96 to tell them to make changes in their attitudes and practices. The Early Church On-Line Encyclopedia (Ecole) Initiative, a cooperative effort on the part of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars across the Internet to establish links of early Church history, says "This letter is important because it indicates that the author was acting has the head of the Christian Church and that it was centered in Rome."

Pope Victor (189-199) ordered Easter to be celebrated throughout the world on Sunday, rather than on the 14th Nisan, whichever day of the week it happen to fall. All of the churches adopted Easter Sunday except those in Asia Minor. Pope Victor then excommunicated all the bishops in Asia Minor. While the Pope eventually relented in the excommunication, no one ever suggested that he did not have the authority.

Pope Calixtus (217-222) overruled those bishops who excommunicated for life all apostates, adulterers, and murderers, regardless of their repentance. The Pope decreed that all sinners with contrition could be absolved and received back into the Catholic Church.

After Pope Cornelius (251-253) was elected, he was faced with an antipope, Novatian, who promptly went about trying to consecrate bishops throughout the world who would be loyal to him. Naturally, this created tremendous uncertainty and confusion wherever Novatian tried to create false bishops over the heads of the legitimate bishops. This unequivocally shows the power of the Pope as the recognized leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.

Pope Stephen (254-257) removed certain bishops in Africa for heresy. Later he overruled a synod of African bishops which wanted to re-baptize lapsed Catholics returning to the faith and those converting to Catholicism from schismatic sects. The Pope made it very clear he was in charge and eventually prevailed in this matter.

Pope Dionysius (260-268) reprimanded Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria for misstatements on the Trinity. The Bishop then followed the Pope's guidance.

Pope Sylvester (314-335) did not attend the First Council of Arles (314), thinking it unbecoming for him to leave Rome. Following Arles, the bishops there commended him for not leaving the spot "where the Apostles daily sit in judgment." He repeated this example at Nicaea, which his successors followed in the councils of Sardica (343), Rimini (359), and the Eastern ecumenical councils. At Nicaea, Pope Sylvester sent two priests as his legates, who helped preside over the sessions and who were the first to sign the cannons.

Pope Julius (337-352) decided that Athanasius, rather than Pistus, should be the Bishop of Alexandria. At the same time, he read the riot act to the Arians in Alexandria.

Because Pope Liberius (352-366) stood firm against Arianism, Emperor Constantius had him kidnapped and replaced with an antipope, Felix, who no one accepted. In captivity, the Pope was tortured until he signed a semi-Arian document, which, of course, was not valid. This episode clearly showed the vital role of the Pope in determining Catholic doctrine. The Pope returned to Rome and continued his fight for orthodoxy. He eventually succeeded in seeing many Arians come back to the Catholic Church.

These examples take us through the first three centuries after Jesus founded the Church. Of course, there are scores of other examples after 366. Dr. Horton's first example of a bishop who he says did not support papal primacy was St. Cyprian, who presided over the Seventh Council of Carthage, Africa in September 258, which responded to Pope Stephen's condemnation of a previous African council which stated that all non-Catholic baptisms were invalid. If the first instance Dr. Horton can find of a bishop who rejected papal primacy is a quarter of a millennium after Jesus, then his case is weak inDouche. But in fact, Dr. Horton's case is not just weak. It's nonexistent.

St. Cyprian clearly recognized the primacy and authority of Pope Fabian (236-250), Pope Cornelius (251-253), Pope Lucius I (253-254), Pope Stephen (254-257), and Pope Sixtus II (257-258).

A convert to Catholicism, St. Cyprian was baptized on April 18, 246. He become Bishop of Carthage in 248. In 251, he wrote, "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

In 252, in a letter to Pope Cornelius informing him of a rival bishop in Carthage, he wrote, "When a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source."

Later, St. Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen asking him to remove Bishop Marcian of Arles, who was refusing absolution to repentant sinners even on their deathbed, and to arrange for a new bishop to replace him.

There's a lot more historical evidence regarding St. Cyprian's belief in the primacy of the Pope. For Dr. Horton to suggest that Catholic tradition did not support that primacy ignores all of the abundant historical proof. It is true that St. Cyprian later got into a dispute with Pope Stephen about re-baptism of persons who enter the Catholic Faith from other Christian denominations or Catholics who had lapsed and returned to the Church.

Dr. Horton quotes the Seventh Council of Carthage in 258 as saying "neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops," but that passage refers to the Council not forcing all bishops in Northern Africa to go along with re-baptisms. Specifically, it was a statement by St. Cyprian that he was not attempting to impose his opinion regarding re-baptism on Bishop Jubaianus.

There is no one who thinks that refers to the Bishop of Rome. In fact, the deliberations of the Council of Carthage were sent to Pope Steven for approval, but he rejected them, making it very clear that Catholic doctrine was once baptized, always baptized. He forbade re-baptisms and threatened excommunication to those who performed them. The Pope emphasized that he was the successor to St. Peter, about whom Cyprian had written about so enthusiastically. He told St. Cyprian he must obey him.

There is no evidence that St. Cyprian, who was martyred shortly after, was ever excommunicated. St. Jerome wrote that, after receiving the Pope's command, the African bishops then corrected their decision to re-baptize and issued a new decree. St. Augustine says the Easterners also followed the Pope's ruling.

Dr. Horton's first case-in-point actually adds to the evidence for the primacy of the Pope.

His second example was from Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea, which he characterized as declaring that each church center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops.

But Dr. Horton didn't quote Canon 6. Here's what it actually said: "Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, as regards Antioch and the other provinces, let each church retain its special privileges."

There are a couple of different opinions on the exact meaning of the canon, but both views are indicative of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. By looking closely at the Greek, the best interpretation is that, because the Roman Bishop has historically recognized the Alexandrian Bishop's authority in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that ancient custom should be upheld.

A little background: The long-standing authority of the Bishop of Alexandria over the churches of Egypt and the neighboring provinces had been contested by Bishop Meletius of Lycopoli and his Arian allies. They asked him upon what warrant the claim to rule over and depose his fellow bishops was based.

The Bishop of Alexandria had no written document, so the Council of Nicaea came to his assistance by decreeing that his authority must be respected because it was "archaia" and because it was sanctioned by the Roman Bishop ("epeide kai to en te Rome episkopo touto sunethes estin").

Another interpretation holds that the arrangement for the Bishop of Alexandria to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis is approved because this is the way it is done in Rome. The procedures for doing things in Rome are held up as role models for the Catholic Church throughout the world.

Either way, Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea illustrates the primacy of the Pope.

The next example Dr. Horton provides is the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which he said declared that Rome's rank was based on its political significance, rather than any spiritual superiority. Canon 28 states:

"Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognizing the canon which has recently been read out — the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honored by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her."

However, when all of the information about the Council is considered in context, papal primacy is upheld in the strongest possible manner!

The Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church met from October 8 until 1 November 451 at St. Euphemia's Church in Chalcedon, in the near vicinity of Constantinople. Its principal purpose was to assert the doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites.

Due to the invasion of Attila the Hun in Western Europe, very few Western bishops could attend the Council. Of the 520 bishops in attendance (some estimates are as high as 630), only the papal legates and two African bishops represented the West. All of the others belonged to the Eastern Church.

However, the presiding officer was one of the papal legates, Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum. The members of the council recognized this prerogative of the papal legates. When writing to the Pope, they professed that, through his representatives, he presided over them in the council.

From the Acts of Council in the first session:

"Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out.

"Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

"Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions. "Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith. His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome."

In the second session held on October 10, Pope Leo's epistle was read to the members of the Council. When the letter was read, the Acts indicate the members of the Council exclaimed:

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles."

On October 31, the Council passed Cannon 28, which attempted to reinstate Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople in 381, which said, "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."

However, Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople never obtained the confirmation and consent of Pope Damascus and, thus, was invalid. The Council of Chalcedon tried again with its Canon 28.

At the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon, the bishops wrote to Pope Leo to inform him of what had been done, thanked him for the exposition of the faith contained in his epistle, spoke of his legates as having presided over them in his name, and asked for his ratification of the Council, including Canon 28:

"We make know you furthermore that we have made still another enactment which we have deemed necessary for the maintenance of good order and discipline, and we are persuaded that your Holiness will approve and confirm our decree. We are confident you will shed upon the Church of Constantinople a ray of that Apostolic splendor which you possess, for you have ever cherished this church and you are not at all niggardly in imparting your riches to your children.

"Vouchsafe then, most Holy and Blessed Father, to accept what we have done in your name, and in a friendly doubt that this good deed should proceed in the first instance from you provident hand. But we, wished to gratify the pious Christian emperors, and the illustrious Senate, and the capital of the empire have judged that an Ecumenical council was the fittest occasion for effecting this measure.

"Hence, we have made bold to confirm the privileges of the aforementioned city, as if Your Holiness had taken the initiative, for we know how tenderly you love your children, and we feel that in honoring the child we have honored the parent. We have informed you of everything with a view of proving our sincerity and of obtaining your confirmation and consent."

Likewise, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Leo, "The holy Synod and I have submitted this canon to your Holiness in order to obtain your assent and confirmation, which I beseech your Holiness not to withhold."

Let their be no doubt about the views of the Council of Chalcedon: As successor to St. Peter as Bishop of Rome, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church! As a postscript, Pope Leo ratified the Council of Chalcedon but item-vetoed Canon 28.

Once again, Dr. Horton's own examples definitely support the primacy of the Pope.

This is true with the last example as well.

Dr. Horton said Pope Gregory I (590-604) rejected "the word 'universal' as it was being used to express an exaggerated claim to authority over others by the pontiff" and purports to quote from "Epistle 18."

This is totally and completely false.

First, the so-called "quotation" Rev. Horton provided is actually pieced together from two completely different Epistles: Book V, Epistle XVIII, and Book VII, Epistle XXXIII.

The truth is that in Book V, Epistle XVIII, Pope Gregory I is strongly reprimanding the Bishop of Constantinople, John the Faster (John IV), from using the title "universal bishop," because he had no authority to do so and because the title implies that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates.

Catholic theology does not affirm this of the Pope or anyone.

Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See.

In 1053, Pope Leo IX (1049-1054) wrote to Bishop Michael Cerularius of Constantinople, "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which inDouche they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church." But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

Here's the background:

In 588, Bishop John IV held a synod at Constantinople to examine certain charges against Gregory, Patriarch of Antioch. Of course, Constantinople had no right to discuss the affairs of Antioch, but the Acts of the Synod were sent to Pope Pelagius II (570-590) for approval. The Acts were signed by John "archbishop and ecumenical patriarch."

Pope Pelagius II protested against this title and told Bishop John IV never to use it again. When Pope Pelagius II died, he was succeeded by Pope Gregory I, who was on good terms with Bishop John IV, as Gregory had known him before when he was a legate to Constantinople.

In 593, Bishop John IV tried again to use the title, but Pope Gregory I was as vehement as Pope Pelagius II in disapproving it.

The Bishop had scourged two priests in his diocese accused of heresy. The priests appealed to the Pope — in itself illustrating the role of the Pope in the worldwide Catholic Church.

In the resulting correspondence, John the Faster assumed the title of ecumenical patriarch, "O'ikoumenikòs patriárches," in almost every line of his letter. It is true that Pope Gregory I knew no Greek and read the letter when it was translated into Latin as "Patriarcha universalis," which may have had a somewhat different meaning from what was intended by Bishop John IV. Intended or not, it is plain how the Pope understood it. In Book V, Epistle XVIII (which Dr. Horton failed to include in his so-called quotation), Pope Gregory I wrote to Bishop John IV:

"For, having confessed thyself unworthy to be called a bishop, thou hast at length been brought to such a pass as, despising thy brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop. And inDouche with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory;

"And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou art not bent on arrogation by derogation of thy brethren.

"Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren."

In Book VII, Epistle XXXIII, which Dr. Horton incorrectly claims is part of "Epistle 18," Pope Gregory I wrote to Emperor Maurice:

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests."

Likewise, in Book V, Epistle XX, the Pope writes to the Emperor:

"For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter… Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores"

And in Book IX, Epistle LXVIII, in a message to Bishops Eusebius of Thessalonica, Urbicus of Dyrrachium, Andrew of Nicopolis, John of Corinth, John of Prima Justiniana, John of Crete, John of Larissa and Scodra, and others, Pope Gregory I wrote, "For if one, as he (John the Faster) supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops."

Thus, Pope Gregory I in 593 proclaimed consistent Catholic doctrine regarding the nature of the episcopate and the papacy.

There is no question that, as Bishop of Rome, he exercised a primacy of authority over the whole Church. Protestant historian J. D. N. Kelly, in the Oxford Dictionary of Popes, writes that "He was indefatigable, however, in upholding the Roman primacy and successfully maintained Rome's appellate jurisdiction in the east."

Pope Gregory I wrote that "It is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches…" (Book III, Epistle XXX)

In a letter to Bishop John of Syracuse, Pope Gregory I wrote, "And it is exceedingly doubtful whether he says such things to us sincerely, or in fact because he is being attacked by his fellow-bishops: for, as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it." (Book IX, Epistle LIX)

Furthermore, in Book IX, Epistle LXVIII (the same message to several bishops in which he condemned Bishop John IV's "proud and pestiferous title of ecumenical, that is to say, universal"), Pope Gregory I wrote, "without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force."

Dr. Horton says, "What is the tradition then? Strikingly, the traditions of the ancient fathers of both the East and West, even the Bishop of Rome, is that the very doctrine of papal supremacy, which Rome eventually declared infallibly binding on all Christians, was at best an act of schism and disunity and at worst a claim worth comparing to the arch-usurper of Christ's authority, the Antichrist."

The most charitable thing that can be said about Dr. Horton is that he knows very little about the facts of history.

He is completely unable to prove his statements. Not one of his examples supported his contentions. In fact, each example actually upheld the primacy of authority of the Pope.

Dr. Horton goes on to incorrectly claim that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was based on the Donation of Constantine, which he said was "Forged in the papal chambers under Pope Paul I (757-767)."

He provides no sources for his claims, but historical scholars do not agree with him. Neither the World Book Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, the Early Church On-Line Encyclopedia, or the Microsoft Encarta On-Line Encyclopedia make any such statements.

All of them say that the Donation of Constantine was a document, which was composed sometime between 750 and 800, purporting to give dominion over all of Rome to Pope Sylvester I and is successors for curing Emperor Constantine I of leprosy.

It was found in the Frankish Empire around 850. No use was made of until 1054 when Pope Leo IX made reference to it in a letter to Bishop Michael Cerularius of Constantinople. In the 12th century, the document was used to support papal claims of temporal lordship over central Italy. However, Pope Innocent (1198-1216) rejected it. In 1440, Lorenzo Valla published a study proving it was false.

Even if the document had been genuine, neither Emperor Constantine nor any other politician would have authority to make any pronouncement whatsoever regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Catholic Church.

So while Dr. Horton once again badly "misses the boat," he eventually does come around to getting a handle on the true role of the Pope. To his credit, he writes:

"Furthermore, the first five centuries witnessed the greatest doctrinal crises in church history. In these debates, the orthodox interpretations of such biblical doctrines as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, original sin, and the need for grace were frequently defended by Rome. While other bishops were often less trustworthy in their interpretations of Scripture on these crucial points, the bishops of Rome usually took the right stand when truth required resolute confidence."

Bingo!

This is the meaning of Jesus' words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against" his Church (Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18) and that "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Gospel of St. Matthew 28:20) He would not permit his Church to teach error.

Likewise in the Gospel of St. John 14:16, Jesus says, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever."

Also, in the Gospel of St. John 14:26, Jesus promises, "But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Furthermore, in the Gospel of St. John 16:12-13, Jesus says, "I have yet many things to say unto you, you ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of trust, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

To provide leadership to his Church, Jesus gave the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Gospel of St. Matthew 16:19) to St. Peter and his successors. This role as the Chief Steward of the Church can be understood from the Prophecy of Isaiah 22:20-22:

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

In addition, the power of Chief Shepherd was conferred on St. Peter in the Gospel of St. John 21:15-17 when Jesus tells him to "Feed my lambs" and "Feed my sheep." This special role can be understood from the following two verses:

2nd Book of Samuel 5:2 "Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel."

The Prophecy of Ezekiel 34:23 "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd."

Likewise, in the Gospel of St. Luke 22:31-32, Jesus confers on St. Peter the responsibility to strengthen his fellow apostles, who are the first bishops of the Church:

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

For almost 2,000 years, that is exactly what the Popes have done.

(Art Kelly is a member of St. Veronica's Catholic Church in Herndon Virginia. He can be reached at arthurkelly@yahoo.com)

This item 4424 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org

© Copyright Trinity Communications 2003 unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions