Why Catholics Do Not Rely On Scripture Alone

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Catholics often hear the claim, "That's extra-biblical!" Well, yes, perhaps it is, and here's why Catholics don't rely on scripture alone in three parts. Again, I imagine that some "non-denominationalists" will spend a great deal of time refuting each and every one of these passages via alternative interpretation. They have quite the chore ahead of them. One doesn't have to like it, but here it is nonetheless.

(All verse put together from an old IRC friend.)
____________________

I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of 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 the 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.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

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 again 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. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

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 even 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 by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
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 ignore 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 and even Protestants would agree. 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 to the early Church, 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. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
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. Indeed, 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 probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant 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.
__________________

:coffee:
 

Starman3000m

New Member
...
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.

Sorry, but Paul warned specifically about those who would come along and change things - preaching another "Jesus" and another Gospel. That's what the RCC has done through its added dogma, Catechism, Magesterium, and papal decrees ex-cathedra.


But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
(Corinthians 11:3-4)


For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

There Is Only One Truth (John 14:6)
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Sorry, but

IOW, "Sorry but I'm going to ignore the very biblical evidence that I constantly ask for because it just doesn't feed my hatred for Catholicism, and continue to throw it out there anyway no matter how stupid it may be."

Paul warned specifically about those who would come along and change things - preaching another "Jesus" and another Gospel. That's what the RCC has done through its added dogma, Catechism, Magesterium, and papal decrees ex-cathedra.

You mean like the bible-only churches and Christians who didn't come into existence until ONE-THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED years and later after Christ? The thought has never crossed your mind that the verse is referring to YOU, has it. :coffee:
 

Starman3000m

New Member
IOW, "Sorry but I'm going to ignore the very biblical evidence that I constantly ask for because it just doesn't feed my hatred for Catholicism, and continue to throw it out there anyway no matter how stupid it may be."

I disagree with the RCC indoctrination on the heretical teachings that are not based on the first-century church nor found in the New Testament teachings. New Testament believers are responsible for pointing out the theological errors of any "religion" that claims to be Christian but is actually teaching another Gospel and another "Jesus".

Just because I totally disagree with your faith does not mean I dislike you at all as a person Radiant1. Same goes for those who are Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Those religions are in disagreement with the Holy Bible and have indoctrinated their followers to believe in "another Gospel" which is not the one that the New Testament Jesus Christ and His disciples taught. That's why I will continue to challenge the RCC beliefs.

The New Testament Jesus does not have His mother assisting Him in Heaven as "The Queen of Heaven," "Spouse of the Holy Spirit," "Advocate," "Benefactress," "Mediatrix," "Co-Redemptrix," etc. and there is no spiritual half-way house called "purgatory" for the cleansing of souls as Catholics have been led (misled) to believe in.

Yes - There Is Only One Truth (John 14:6)
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Sorry, but Paul warned specifically about those who would come along and change things - preaching another "Jesus" and another Gospel. That's what the RCC has done through its added dogma, Catechism, Magesterium, and papal decrees ex-cathedra.

You mean like the bible-only churches and Christians who didn't come into existence until ONE-THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED years and later after Christ? The thought has never crossed your mind that the verse is referring to YOU, has it. :coffee:

I disagree with the RCC indoctrination on the heretical teachings that are not based on the first-century church nor found in the New Testament teachings. New Testament believers are responsible for pointing out the theological errors of any "religion" that claims to be Christian but is actually teaching another Gospel and another "Jesus".

Just because I totally disagree with your faith does not mean I dislike you at all as a person Radiant1. Same goes for those who are Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Those religions are in disagreement with the Holy Bible and have indoctrinated their followers to believe in "another Gospel" which is not the one that the New Testament Jesus Christ and His disciples taught. That's why I will continue to challenge the RCC beliefs.

The New Testament Jesus does not have His mother assisting Him in Heaven as "The Queen of Heaven," "Spouse of the Holy Spirit," "Advocate," "Benefactress," "Mediatrix," "Co-Redemptrix," etc. and there is no spiritual half-way house called "purgatory" for the cleansing of souls as Catholics have been led (misled) to believe in.

Who gives a flying crap if you disagree? We don't need your approval. As I said, you don't have to like it but there it is nonetheless. And, I hate to tell you this, but according to apostolic Christians YOU are the heretic. :lmao:

Now, I've said enough to you about that. This thread is about why Catholics do not rely on scripture alone. I take it you don't have much to say about that. :coffee:
 

Starman3000m

New Member
...This thread is about why Catholics do not rely on scripture alone. I take it you don't have much to say about that. :coffee:

Mormons don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

Jehovah's Witnesses don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

Seventh Day Adventists don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

And they each teach a different "gospel" and another "Jesus" - just like the RCC does. :coffee:

There Is Only One Truth (John 14:6)
 

Toxick

Splat
Mormons don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

Jehovah's Witnesses don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

Seventh Day Adventists don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

And they each teach a different "gospel" and another "Jesus" - just like the RCC does. :coffee:



Which one is the worst? Just out of this bunch, which Jesus is the differentest from the real one, and who's going to hit the floor of hell the hardest? Which one of these was Paul specifically referring to in his letters?
 

Zguy28

New Member
IOW, "Sorry but I'm going to ignore the very biblical evidence that I constantly ask for because it just doesn't feed my hatred for Catholicism, and continue to throw it out there anyway no matter how stupid it may be."



You mean like the bible-only churches and Christians who didn't come into existence until ONE-THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED years and later after Christ? The thought has never crossed your mind that the verse is referring to YOU, has it. :coffee:
The Roman church is like the Jewish leaders of Jesus time. They were once part of the people of God. We all know what the fate of the of the Jewish leaders was.

It's a shame really.
 

Starman3000m

New Member
Which one is the worst? Just out of this bunch, which Jesus is the differentest from the real one, and who's going to hit the floor of hell the hardest? Which one of these was Paul specifically referring to in his letters?

Paul was referring to anyone that came along and taught a different Gospel and another "Jesus" than from what Christ's Apostles were preaching from their own experiences. It didn't take long for deception to creep in and begin to mislead followers even in the first-century, thus, Paul's warnings.

Unbelief in the True Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of the New Testament accounts is equally misleading regardless of which religion it is. Christ said that He is The Way, The Truth and The Life and that no one can come unto the Father except through Him:(John 14:6)

Pseudo-Christian religions have their own version of "Jesus" but when compared to the first-century accounts as written in the Holy Bible, they are not the True Jesus.

Basically, the RCC claims that Mary joined Jesus as "Queen of Heaven" and assists Him now in the Redemption of souls process. That does NOT describe the New Testament Jesus of the Holy Bible.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
The Roman church is like the Jewish leaders of Jesus time. They were once part of the people of God. We all know what the fate of the of the Jewish leaders was.

It's a shame really.

The Catholic Church doesn't need your approval anymore than Starman's, and you're also one of the ones Paul warned about. Btw, Jews are still part of the people of God; God doesn't revoke His promises.

I'm guessing you don't have much to say about the actual topic at hand either. :coffee:
 

libby

New Member
Mormons don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

Jehovah's Witnesses don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

Seventh Day Adventists don't rely on scripture alone; they have their own extra-Biblical teachings;

And they each teach a different "gospel" and another "Jesus" - just like the RCC does. :coffee:

There Is Only One Truth (John 14:6)

And since no book of the Bible gives us a "Table of Contents", then Bible Christians are extra-Biblical, too.
Round and round and round we go...where we stop...nobody knows...
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Exactly! That's why God's Holy City is Jerusalem; not Rome.

There Is Only One Truth.
(John 14:6)

Catholics don't dispute that Jerusalem is God's Holy City, so whatever point you're trying to make has no value.

You still can't address the issue at hand can you. :coffee:

And since no book of the Bible gives us a "Table of Contents", then Bible Christians are extra-Biblical, too.
Round and round and round we go...where we stop...nobody knows...

Exactly. To even get the bible one has to go "extra-biblical". I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't see any way around that logic. :shrug:
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Why do you want to bait him?

He is a weird dude, caught up on some weird Evangelical BS.

He is lucky he was born in the USA, otherwise he would of been burned at the stake.

He must not only hate his mother but all women in general, esp. Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

he is a squawking parrot.
 

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
The Catholic Church doesn't need your approval anymore than Starman's, and you're also one of the ones Paul warned about. Btw, Jews are still part of the people of God; God doesn't revoke His promises. I'm guessing you don't have much to say about the actual topic at hand either. :coffee:
Sadly it seems that you are trying to drive the point home that ALL those verses somehow make your viewpoint correct when, actually, many of them are NOT saying what you (or your friend) make them out to say. The "impositions" on those verses are contrary to biblical teachings but, since you don't take God's Word first & foremost over all else, you wouldn't agree with that.

Also, as a Christian, you should be supporting God's Word over ANY tradition; oral or written. Jesus said to in Matthew 15. The general rule is: any traditions are fine as long as they do not contradict Scripture. That stuff in the other thread about some oral and some written would be laughable if it wasn't soo dangerous...:shrug:

P.S. Although I have many, I wouldn't ask me for too many specifics because it's the "same old song & dance". All those verses still don't make some of the RCC doctrines any less wrong...
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Sadly it seems that you are trying to drive the point home that ALL those verses somehow make your viewpoint correct when, actually, many of them are NOT saying what you (or your friend) make them out to say. The "impositions" on those verses are contrary to biblical teachings but, since you don't take God's Word first & foremost over all else, you wouldn't agree with that.

Also, as a Christian, you should be supporting God's Word over ANY tradition; oral or written. Jesus said to in Matthew 15. The general rule is: any traditions are fine as long as they do not contradict Scripture. That stuff in the other thread about some oral and some written would be laughable if it wasn't soo dangerous...:shrug:

P.S. Although I have many, I wouldn't ask me for too many specifics because it's the "same old song & dance". All those verses still don't make some of the RCC doctrines any less wrong...

You're right. The same old song and dance would be your personal interpretations versus the apostles and their sucessors collectively. :yawn:

Btw, I didn't ask you for jack, nor would I. I am presenting scriptural evidence for why Catholics believe what we do. It is what it is. As I said, you don't have to like it, but there it is.
 

Zguy28

New Member
The Catholic Church doesn't need your approval anymore than Starman's,
Tell me something I don't know.

and you're also one of the ones Paul warned about. Btw, Jews are still part of the people of God; God doesn't revoke His promises.
Did I say Jews or Jewish leaders of Jesus' time?

I'm guessing you don't have much to say about the actual topic at hand either. :coffee:
I have lots, and I've said it in other threads.

You're claim to circular reasoning reveals your ignorance on what Sola Scriptura really is.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Did I say Jews or Jewish leaders of Jesus' time?

You said "The Roman church is like the Jewish leaders of Jesus time. They were once part of the people of God. We all know what the fate of the of the Jewish leaders was." I was pointing out that they are still a part of the people of God. :shrug:

You're claim to circular reasoning reveals your ignorance on what Sola Scriptura really is.

If that's the case, then by all means start a new thread and educate everyone on what Sola Scriptura really is according to you.
 
Top