Sola Scriptura: the full and final authority of the faith (Part 2)

In Part one we made a solid biblical case for the doctrine  sola scriptura "scriptura alone" as the full and final Authority. Our intention now is to consider various objections against this divinely revealed truth. And see if they really hold up to biblical scrutiny - it is our presupposition that no amount of attack will render this truth as being insufficient.

Now let us get into the arguments that are offered on the part of those who reject the scripture as the full and final authoritative truth; and of course we refer to Rome's Apologists.

The first argument comes from the Cross examination between Dr James White and Catholic Apologist Patrick Madrid, in their 1993 debate on Sola Scriptura:

 OK, if I understand your question correctly, let me answer by saying that one of the good works that is implied, it's actually explicated there, is teaching sound doctrine.  And part of sound doctrine, part of the full counsel of God, Mr. White, is the authority of the Bishop of Rome.  Now, I know that you do not accept or agree with the various Bible verses that can be brought forward by the Catholic apologist to support that position.  That simply makes my case.  The Catholic is using Scripture in the proper method that Jesus intended, in harmony with what the Church has always taught, and in harmony with the tradition and authoritative teaching that the Church has handed down.  Therefore, this doctrine, pardon me, this verse, assists me as a man of God in teaching sound doctrine.  I don't have to rely on my own private authority on what I think the Bible means.  I could be wrong, you could be wrong.   I'm able to look at the context of Scripture in the over-all life of the Church and see how the Church interprets it.

Here we have one of the most intriguing statement ever made on the part of a Roman Catholic; he is trying to redefine scriptural realities to shoehorn in a foreign concept. Notice the central statement being made: "And part of sound doctrine, part of the full counsel of God, Mr. White, is the authority of the Bishop of Rome."  Now that is one amazing statement to make! Just what basis do we have for injecting the bishop of Rome into Paul words on  "sound doctrine" in the Pastoral epistles or even into the Ephesian address in Acts 20. I see no clear biblical warrant for allowing such a move.

First of all, there is no clear biblical warrant for the office of the pope and the papacy; nor for Magisterium which are the authorities in the Roman Catholic System. They have no historical, no biblical precedence going back to the Lord Jesus Christ or his Apostle. What we have is a false system that is seeking undo the "faith once for all delivered to the saints."  There is no other supreme authority outside the bible.

Second,  only three passages have been "infallibly" interpreted by Rome to which this office has any legitimate grounds to exist; but in each case, she has misapplied and twisted the contextual meaning to accommodate for her existence: They are Matthew 16, Luke 22 and John 21 and none of them actually teach what Rome claims of them.  For if they did teach as Rome claims; then the other cults who do the same have just about every right that Rome does to misapply Passages to themselves.

Third, It should noted that in his last words "Therefore, this doctrine, pardon me, this verse, assists me as a man of God in teaching sound doctrine.  I don't have to rely on my own private authority on what I think the Bible means."  Now that is a fascinating statement to make! Why is it that if you do not "rely on my own private authority" does that mean that the Roman Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted what the sections mean and you are just repeating it. If not, then you are guilty of interpreting it privately.

 

The second  argument comes from the Rebuttal from Gerry Matatics, in one of their debates on Sola Scriptura:

I really do like Mr. White very much, I honestly do, and I hope that in some sense, maybe it’s slightly schizophrenic, that we can be friends. But I do, at the same time, honestly believe that Mr. White is, his presentation, is misleading in at least three very important ways.  

First of all, it is misleading in terms of the way that it is interpreting the Scriptures that he adduces to support his point.. He will go to passages where Jesus is quoting Scripture and say, “Look, Jesus quoted Scripture to prove his point.” Of course, the Catholic doesn’t deny that. Scripture is an authority.

Secondly, he quoted passages about the Word of God, like I Peter 1:23. But in that passage which he read rather rapidly Peter is talking about what? Men who were moved by the Holy Spirit and these men spoke from God. He’s talking about the preaching of the prophets. Certainly it has relevance to the writing as well, so that the Scriptures they write are inspired as well, but it is not restricted to their writing.

 Finally, Mr. White misrepresents not only that the Catholic position that the Church is above the Scripture. We don’t teach that. It is the bride of Christ. It is the minister, the servant of the Word of God. But the wife of a husband has an authority over the children in the home.

Here is the second attack on the doctrine of Sola Scripture "the full and final authority" this time by a man called Jerry Matatics. His argument in this rebuttal is to point out the three flaws that he perceives in the argumentation that James White offers; he tells us " But I do, at the same time, honestly believe that Mr. White is, his presentation, is misleading in at least three very important ways." So the chare is made, but how does he go about proving it? In the following fashion:

First of all, he says " it is misleading in terms of the way that it is interpreting the Scriptures"  as before unless the papacy or the Magisterium have infallibly given understanding on any passage mentioned; then the question should be "how do I know that my interpretation as a Catholic is correct" because that is the bottom line in this issue. We are dealing with a contextual exegesis on the part of a protestant  and a self defined interpretation from the Catholic.
He has no place to say some one is wrong in their interpretation according to the Authority he is under; he has only his "private interpretation.

Second, in this point we see a great and horrific misrepresentation of scripture come through: "But in that passage which he read rather rapidly Peter is talking about what? Men who were moved by the Holy Spirit and these men spoke from God. He’s talking about the preaching of the prophets."  Just where in 1 Peter 1:21 do we find this application being made that it was just preaching on the main. We don't. He has misrepresented the passage.
On top of this, we see a misidentification in his words; he speaks of 2 peter 1:19-21 as if it is 1 Peter 1:21 they are different contexts addressing different issues. One is the nature of Scripture and the other is the nature of Salvation.

Third, when this man says "the Church is above the Scripture. We don’t teach that." While it maybe his position that the church does not see itself as being "over the bible" that is not the reality of the matter. He is either ignorant to what Rome teaches or is being deceptive. Let us consider a few statements from their Catechism:

Do we get from the Bible alone all our knowledge and certainty about what God has told us? No, there is also Sacred Tradition … What is tradition? The Word of God handed on to us by the Apostles in their preaching and by their successors in the church to the present day … Do you have to believe in tradition? Yes … we are obliged to accept all the truths contained in the Bible and Tradition" pages 9-10

And also this statement,

Does Jesus require us to follow the Pope in matters of religion? Yes, because obedience and loyalty to the Pope are among the chief requirements of Our Lord's plan for unity … Can the Pope make an error when teaching religion? Not when he is speaking solemnly (ex cathedra) as head of the church. Then he has that special protection from error which God gives as a spiritual safeguard for all the members of the church. page 56.

It would appear that the church which is made of the authoritative personal: the pope, bishops, cardinals and priests are the authority; and what is worse, they are in fact more authoritative then both the bible and tradition being the ones who give the declaration what they mean.

The third argument that we need to consider come from Patrick Madrid work on Sola scriptura; and he states the following:

Let's say I'm an Evangelical. When I find out you're Catholic, I'm going to hammer you with Bible verses that I believe demonstrate that the Catholic Church's teachings on issues such as purgatory, Mary, the papacy, and the Eucharist are unbiblical. "The Bible alone provides the totality of God's revealed truth that's necessary for the Church to have. Forget about all those man-made Catholic traditions (traditions which, by the way, are condemned

by Christ in Matthew 15:3-9 end Mark 7:6-8). Just go by the Bible alone,"

 The Catholic case against <sola scriptura> may be summarized by saying that <sola scriptura> is unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable

Here we have an attack made by Patrick Madrid in his book on Sola Scriptura: he claim that is false on three foundations (1) historical grounds. (2) Biblical grounds. (3) and that it is not practical. However, the issue here is that such an attack is based on a false understanding of the doctrine when he says, "The Bible alone provides the totality of God's revealed truth." It is not that the bible is only source to record truth; it is in fact, that bible alone is the full and final court of appeal on matter that concern doctrine and practice because it is God breathed and inspired by the Spirit.

Now concerning these areas that are mentioned above, we do not need to seek to prove them as such. But because it is only fair to consider them each one at a time. Lets begin:

First, is it true that the doctrine unhistorical? Fair question. But what is the reality of this matter:  Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Athanasius, Ambrose,  Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome. All of the 8 men are representatives of a larger body of people who made it the case that Scripture was there final authority, and not as Patrick assumes "the only authority." It is wise to consider just one brief statement on the matter to fully under the Churches position before 420:

we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings…And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set? (On the Soul and the Resurrection)

 In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind….In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself.” – Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

 Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter….We must proclaim, exactly as we shall find them in the words of Scripture, the majesty and functions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so debar the heretics from robbing these Names of their connotation of Divine character, and compel them by means of these very Names to confine their use of terms to their proper meaning….I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.”  (On the Trinity, 2:5, 3:23)

It would appear that the church father and the early church had a radically different authority to that of the modern day Catholic who may well be like Patrick shoehorning his belief back upon their writings. It is important her to consider a statement above in the defence of the trinity, when we consider what Rome has done with Mary (may she rest in peace) Hilary states "Their treason involves us in the difficult and dangerous position of having to make a definite pronouncement, beyond the statements of Scripture, upon this grave and abstruse matter." These words are a definite remind to be biblical in our belief and to stray away from that position.

Second,  as for the other two points I just point back to the first part of this article where I demonstrate that this doctrine is biblical and it works, and now we see that it is actually historical too. And that means that all 3 point are refuted.


The fourth argument is provided by Catholic Dave Armstrong who lists ten reasons why "Sola Scriptura" is not true, he states:

Reason no. 2: The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also  

"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture.

Reason no. 3 Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word  

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:8-13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it's not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. In that sense, Scripture is the "final judge" of Tradition, but it does not rule out all binding Tradition and Church authority (cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2).

Here we have another attack in the form of 10 steps to refute Sola Scripture;  we would love to go through each one, but for the sake of time we have chosen only to address two of them. It must be noted that several had to do with traditions As we see from the above two examples. And as I have made it clear in the first part "Sola Scriptura" does not teach that it is only Authority, but the final Authority.
Therefore, the mere fact that the bible mentions the word tradition does not refute the doctrine. It is on the shoulder of the Catholic to prove that the term tradition points to anything other than what is written within the pages of the bible. And since they cannot give any proof, it is nothing but a mere assertion on their part to indicate it does.

First, it is important to consider the fact that no Protestant would deny that scriptures often speak of traditions. But we recognise that even the bible distinguishes between the oral teaching of the apostles as being the same in nature to what is written (2 Thessalonians 2:13-17) and that which is classed as a tradition which is said to be of a Prophet or Apostle; but it lack any validity (Matthew 15:1-20).
Only those traditions which are based on scriptural truth are to be accepted, those that are not in any way, shape or form are to be rejected. Scripture is the determinative factor not feelings, not because the pope says so.

Second, it is not because the word  "tradition is a dirty word" that we reject them; that just a weak analysis of the matter. It is in fact, because the bible tells us to examine all things and discern between that which is truly of God and that which is not. And it is this very thing that most Catholic are not doing.
It would be great to actually see a biblical presentation that proves the Papacy, the idea of purgatory, the distinction of sin (venial and mortal); even more how we can know what sin is classed as either. On the dogma of Mary, on any number of issues. But it cannot be given.

The fifth argument comes from Catholic apologist and writer Steve Ray who wrote this in an article in the "upon this rock" magazine, he states:

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the Scriptures.

Here is the final argument we wish to consider from the Catholic stance against Sola Scriptura, but it fails to even take into account what the doctrine teaches: in that it says "The bereans .. on the other hand, were not adherents of Sola Scripture, for they were willing to accepts Paul's new Oral tradition." But that is precisely the point, Sola Scriptura does not deny all tradition, only that which is in conflict with Scripture. Lets consider what else is said:

First of all, we should notice another thing that is said by this man on why were the bereans commended "not because they searched the scriptures, but because they listened" While it may be the case that they listen, it was not for this that they were commended. If we read the passage in any fair fashion; one will see it is precisely because they "examined the scriptures," here is the context:

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also,  (Acts 17:11-13)

The fact that these people were "eager" and/or open had nothing to do with the issue; in fact, biblically Speaking it is because the Holy Spirit was working in these people - the Spirit opened these people up to accept Pauls preaching. And it was through their "examining the scriptures" that they came to see that Paul spoke the truth.

Second, clearly because Paul Oral speech about Christ and the written word of God being from the same Author God the Holy Spirit - it is therefore, easy to see why considering God has his elect in all four corner of the earth, this is the reason why some reject and other accept. It has nothing to do with the person, but everything to do with God being Sovereign over all things. Notice the words of Apostle Paul:

for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:8-10)

Man is saved by God who sovereignly predestines those who will be saved; and leaves those whom he chooses not.  To say these chose because they "more willing to listen" as he has done, he has revealed what kind of God he serves .. it is not the biblical one, it is a weak, insufficient one that cannot save man without man being more willing, more eased in the role. It is nothing but a mockery of the one true God.

This complete the attempts to sabotage the biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura - as we have witnessed the attacks are always false arguments, which hold no legitimate foundation to them.

                       The most blasphemous doctrine to ever surface 

Here we wish to highlight the reality of what happens when Sola Scriptura is neglected by Christians, the Catholics are the prime example of this. One of their practices is known as the "dogma of Mary," or even more known as "Mariam doctrine."  The basic concept is that when one weakens and dampens the truth of Christ being the Sole way for salvation; and that being, the sufficient redeemer - one is left with the arduous task of finding a replacement.
And the Catholics have many such replacements: the Pope and the papacy;  but we see a far worse example being made out of Christ's Mother Mary. Here are the words of one Roman Apologist who tried to defend this view:

As a practical matter, this kind of doctrine is one of the last accepted by someone approaching the Church, particularly someone coming to the Church from fundamentalism, and it is accepted, ultimately, on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of clear scriptural references. Fundamentalists, always looking for biblical citation, can see no reason to accept a belief in Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, but they can, if they take the effort, come to see that there is, at least, nothing in the doctrine that contradicts Christ's role as the one mediator. His role as Mediator is not lessened because she is allowed to assist him.

That statement practically makes the case for the biblical mind believer, who seeks only to know what God has done, what we are meant to believe and adhere by the very sole Authoritative word of God. He says "and it is accepted, ultimately, on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of clear scriptural references." That is precisely the point. Nothing in scripture, nothing in history even remotely suggest that this "doctrine" should believed upon. It is as he says based on the authority of an apostate church that it is believed.
Christ never, even taught that he mother was a redemptix or even one that share in with his Sole work of redemption. No Apostle ever made a mention of such a thing. It is a false teaching that comes directly out of the Pagan roots of Catholicism.

The reason why true Christians (fundamentalists as you call them) ask for scriptural attestation is because it must be attested by the divinely inspired word to be believed in, not merely the word of a man (the pope or magisterium) It must come from the Lord Jesus himself or the inspired words of the Apostles.
Why must we believe in this satanic revealed ideal? No good reason is offered just conjecture that the Church (Rome) has declared it to be the case. Based on what Authority! None whatsoever is even offered. Rome has no real authority, only Christ does by the Inspired word he left us through the Apostles.

Here are some statements that are said of Mary which are very offensive to a true Christian, who has been redeemed by Christ:

• We have confidence but in thee, O most faithful virgin. O great mediatrix of peace between men and God, the love of all men and of God to whom be honor and benediction with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Amen.    

• My most beloved lady, I thank thee for having delivered me from hell as many   times as I have deserved it by my sins. Miserable creature that I was, I was once condemned to that prison and perhaps already after the first sin, the sentence would have been put into execution if thou in thy compassion hast not helped me.

•  Mary's sublime dignity as Queen of Heaven makes her supremely powerful in her maternal intercession for her children on earth. She intercedes to God and Christ to get the grace for whatever we need and it never comes except by her intercession.

•  Mary is the ark which saves from eternal destruction anyone who takes shelter in it. Under the shelter of Mary sinners are saved. .... She will welcome u and secure our salvation. ....If Mary ignores or condemns anyone, that person is inevitably lost

• To honour the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of Angels, is to gain eternal life. This most gracious lady will honour in the next world those who honour her in this world. Let us therefore always with our hearts and tongues honour this divine mother in order that we may be conducted by her into the Kingdom of the blessed. Salvation of sinners should come from the remembrance of her praises whose womb was made the way through which the Saviour came to save sinners. 

• Let all the children of the Catholic Church who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin, let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of Mercy and Grace and all dangers, difficulties and needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared. Nothing is hopeless because while bearing toward us a true motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation,

It is right here we see just how far in error that the Catholic church has gotten itself into; time and time again, we see that they have made her into this Monstrosity. Where rather than allowing her to be what she was an Ordinary Human women who was blessed only in one sense -- to be the Mother of the Lord and Saviour  Jesus Christ. They have take title that are unique to Christ and applied them to her; and a result, they are in term bring people to live lives of Idolatry.
Notice the following words, "To honour the Queen of Heaven, the Queen of Angels, is to gain eternal life." Just how is this achieved we are not told, yet it is the very teaching on Mary that a Catholic must be without compromise. But it gets worse in the following words " O great mediatrix of peace between men and God," it has directly ripped this from scripture and it is not Mary that is being Spoken of, but the Lord Jesus Christ (1 timothy 2:5-6).

Since it is the case that there is no scriptural foundation to any of the dogmas concerning Mary as the above Catholic admitted; it is only fair that such things are seen as innovations and perversions of the truth. These doctrines or dogmas are exactly like those of the Jews that Christ was combatting in Matthew 15/ Mark 7. In both cases, we see that neither have any legitimate foundation Gods word and must be dismissed as false teachings.
They are as Paul would say later in the early Christ "a different gospel" indeed it is the case that it is one that does not saved because it cannot. It is Satan's demonic deception to lead people astray. And many have fallen for it. (Galatians 1:6-10, 2 Corinthians 11:1-6).