SOLA SCRIPTURA

M Yes, but the answers can only be found in the bible, if you are
M trying to find answers to questions about the gift that God gave to
M all of us thru His son, Jesus, which is what this movie is about.
M Only God's word holds the truth....not any other book or even
M person. They may be written about or based upon the bible, but
M it's the one true source for the answers about God's son.

> This is a commonly held and widespread school of thought - one that
> I myself held for many years - it is known in theological circles as "Sola
> Scriptura" (or "Bible Alone"). To our modern sensibilities, it is spoken of
> as an assumed truth. I severely resisted any suggestion to the
> contrary...even after I converted to the Catholic Church. For me, to do
> so would be disloyal to the Lord (so I’m very understanding of intense
> defense of the idea).

For me there are two very important reasons for basing my beliefs on the books of the New Testament; first, their sources were the Apostles who actually beheld the Lord, heard His words, touched him before and after His death and resurrection. They are eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony takes precedence over anything else taught later by church leaders, and if any supposed leader teaches something in disagreement with the original testimony, it must be rejected. Second, the twelve (13 including Paul) shook the world, and transformed it through their heroic example and their preaching. They died (all except John were executed) for the ideas they were promulgating. If they had made something up out of their own imaginations, for their own gain or whatever, I doubt they would have been willing to give their lives for it.

> So what changed my mind? For me it was a reflection of History. Many
> many Christians were lead to Christ, lived and died in their faith over
> many Centuries without ever laying their eyes on any more that perhaps
> a few lines of scripture.

> 1. Various letters and manuscripts were exchanged between churches
> in the infancy of Christianity but no determination of a single compiled
> version of the 27 books of the New Testament was made until the 4th
> century. Imagine that...over 300 years - longer than the whole of our
> countries history - without any agreement of what the new testament
> even was. People were taught the Traditions of the Church (which are
> in complete agreement with the eventual scriptures).

The idea that there was no agreement on the Canon of the NT until the 4th century isn’t quite true. The early church fathers’ lists of canonical books were largely in agreement before Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, made his pronouncement in 367 AD:

Inasmuch as some have taken in hand to draw up for themselves an arrangement of the so-called apocryphal books and to intersperse them with the divinely inspired scripture...it has seemed good to me...to set forth in order the books which are included in the canon and have been delivered to us with accreditation that they are divine…. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words that they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And he reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.'(Quotation from http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2001/01/daily-01-07-2001.shtml )

“In these alone…” sounds pretty dogmatic.

>2. The printing press was not invented until the 15th century, so the vast
>majority of Christians never owned a Bible and even if they had one, the
>average person probably couldnt read well enough to get anything out
>of it. Again imagine that...15 CENTURIES of Christians living and dying
>without ever having a Bible to carry around. How did they learn? The
>scriptures were read aloud during the "Liturgy of the Word" in Mass every
>day; the art in the Churches (stained glass, frescos, statues, paintings
>depicted truths of the Life of Christ for people to learn visually), and the
>spoken tradition that was taught.

You are correct; the scriptures were read aloud, and that’s how Christians learned throughout most of history. The scriptures, including the Old Testament, remained the source material, however. Any part of a worship service that contradicted the teaching of the four gospels and the letters of Paul were rejected. Yes, the Apostles transmitted their message largely through the spoken word. However whatever oral traditions they passed on, had to agree with their writings! Whenever you read the early Fathers’ (Ireneus, Origen, Athanasius, etc.) writings against heresies, they refer to the Jewish Bible, the Gospels, and the letters of Paul. They were then and are now the basis of the authority for the church’s teachings, even if the vast majority of Christians could not possess their own copy of the written words.

“Irenæus, in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century.” (Quotation from http://newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm , the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia)

“The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (Quotation from Ireneus, at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7304_1939792 )

Those four Gospels are the foundation. There was no official church teaching that contradicted them, and so even in the “pre-literate” age you propose, the written word was used to determine truth and to combat heresies. And neither Irenaeus, nor any other bishop whose writings have been preserved, make mention of an oral-only, extra-Biblical Tradition which must be considered alongside the New Testament writings. The oral Apostolic traditions that preceded the writings, and the Apostles’ written word must agree. An excellent examination of this is at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html .

>3. If the Bible alone were sufficient to determine articles of faith, then
>different people reading the same Scripture would come to the same
>conclusions. There are 28,000 Protestant denominations, not different
>church buildings, 28,000 different denominations each teaching their
>own understanding of the truth that they see all reading the same
>scriptures. Try to get them to agree on anything and you will get an
>unending exercise of verse by verse argument of a jillion different opinions.

If you’re talking about subjects such as how baptisms should be done, how church government should be organized, and the sequence of end-time events, I would agree, there are a zillion interpretations of various scriptures. However, if you’re talking about the absolutely essential doctrines of the faith, such as the virgin birth of Christ; the literal death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; the sacrifice of Christ as the one-time payment for the justification of all who believe; any church that believes in Sola Scriptura is going to agree on those essentials. True there are churches that claim to be Bible-believing, yet teach doctrines that disagree with the historic Christian faith, but clearly at some point they are placing some other source of doctrine above the Bible, and are not being true to their own claims. However most churches that have veered from the essentials, take pride in the fact that they do not regard the Bible as inerrant.

>Catholics believe the Church is responsible to determine the truth in the
>Scriptures so that we are united in our understandings. "ACK !!!" you
>might say, "you cant depend on the Church over the scriptures to determine
>doctrine! The Bible is the pillar of foundation and truth" Go to your Bible
>and read these Scripture verses:

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Eph 3:10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Throughout church history, the very definition of Scripture has been: the writings upon which the church can base its teaching -- the writings which carry the Apostles’ original message. In my mind the phrase “the Church is responsible to determine the truth in the Scriptures” does not follow from the verses you quote, because clearly the teaching of the church was established by the Apostles. Paul’s use of the word “church” does not mean that any given believer, or even any given church leader, at any later time in history has the OK from the Lord to establish orthodoxy.

Only the Apostles’ witness to the words of Jesus and the events of the first century can be defined as The Truth. The church today must dispense the truth we received from the Apostles, and scripture is our source for that. There is no other source. To claim otherwise is to claim that there was essential Christian doctrine that was NOT revealed to the Apostles, and that their writings are somehow incomplete. And once you’ve opened that door, you have a situation much worse than having 28,000 different denominations. Now you’re saying that your leader has the authority to edit or to add to the words of the Apostles, and so has authority to edit the essentials. Hello, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Rev. Moon, the Watchtower, etc.

>So as much as I resisted, the very Scriptures that you (and at one point I)
>insisted are the singular source of truth of Christ say very plainly that
>they are not.

The verses you quoted do not in my opinion create an authoritative loophole through which the Apostles’ successors or today’s church leaders can modify or add to the message of the Apostles. So here we disagree, and though I doubt further quotes would change either of our views, here are some of the classic verses that support the primacy of Scripture:

Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Isaiah 8:20 … should not a people inquire of their God? … To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

Mark 7:13 “…thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:16-21 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1 John 1:1-4 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

So we have three sources of truth: the Jewish scriptures, the words of Christ, and the witness of the Apostles. All are found in the written pages of the Bible.

>I know that some folks don’t like challenge to their opinions, but I am
>of the opinion that anything that is really true will withstand scrutiny
>...intense scrutiny if necessary.

I agree. God is big enough and loving enough to receive our questions. In my experience the only source of revelation about God that can withstand intense scrutiny is the Bible. And it is sufficient.