Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
The whole question is set upon a false premise. For us, the Bible is a part of the revealed word of God, not the final arbiter of all Christian truth. The Church's authority is greater than that of the Bible evidenced clearly by the Church forming the canon by counsil to begin with. A servant does not become greater than its master. For this reason, St. Augustine said that he should not believe in the gospels themselves if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church.
And of course, we historic Reformed Protestants would vehemently disagree... and have for centuries. wink

Tomes have been written on both sides defending their respective views and nothing I could possibly say here would therefore be of any import whatsoever. However, I have often put my observation of the error espoused by Rome in very simple terms: Rome claims the Bible is the very Word of God and therefore authoritative. And, that Bible gives Rome the ultimate authority over the Bible, thus making itself not only the supreme authority but de facto and of necessity, infallible, neither of which is logical or possible.

Given that my time is severely limited today, I'll simply provide some articles written by men far more qualified to explain the differences between Rome and Protestantism and who do an excellent job of refuting Rome's position.

- The Authority of Scripture
- What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?
- The Argument for an Infallible Body
- Unshakable Authority

Greetings, Pilgrim.

Thank you for these sources and I have endeavored to read some of it. Of course many points are made that can hardly be contested in one post. Moreover, I'm not disposed to launching into an full blown agenda that undermines this site. I'm aware of the rules and respect them.

One consistant theme I can seize upon in regards to arguments for sola scriptura is the wide chasm between specific authority spelled out in various books, especially the epistles and the assumed general authority that would imply upon a canon that would be officiated 350 years in the future. While I cannot argue against Paul sending an epistle with specific mandates he expected to be observed, he also expected the tradition he gave orally to be observed as well, one not being inferior to the other. It's a stretch to suggest that Paul thought his words to apply to a canon of scriptures the content of which would be decided by a college of men several generations removed from him who would be deciding based on a much broader picture which books belonged and which didn't.

The Bereans were lauded because they searched the scriptures to verify the claims they were hearing. This is often used as a defense of Sola Sciptura, but again it's difficult to make this claim. The Bereans were searching prophesies that foretold of Jesus and, as we see by the form in which the gospels were written, the gospel was certainly preached citing multiple references from the scriptures. What stretches credulity is that Bereans verifying prophestic writings translates into a future canon, decided by Church council by the authority by which Christ commissioned the Church, having lordship over that same church; being a final arbiter of all matters of doctrine and practice.

One area that also bears mention in which I believe Sola Scriptura comes up short is demonstrating that Jesus, before He ascended, invested his authority in a book rather than the Apostles who he taught and commanded to teach as they heard from Him. By what other boldness could the Apostles go against Scripture by changing the Sabbath and doing away with circumcision? This isn't to say that the scriptures weren't cited to support the gospel message, but again deciphering the use of scripture as alluding to a bibliarchy is unreasonable.

These are only a few observations I want to make. In contending with Sola Scriptura, I don't want the wrong message to be sent that I am downplaying the Bible. Scripture is for us a written testamony of the story of salvation, a guide to living rightly and spiritually, a reference for the formation of doctrine and liturgy, and a daily source of inspiration, correction, and sustanance. It's value cannot be overstated and it is certainly precious to me. I have more thoughts to share as much as they are welcome here. Thank you.

Liberalism -- Ideas so good, they have to be mandated.