Web Design

Letter on Sola Scriptura

    This is a very interesting piece I found floating out there on the 'net'. I have to say that I found this article very offensive. I didn't think that there were any more of these hostile anti-Catholics out there, but this article is proof I was wrong. I must presume that you believe all that is written here, if I'm wrong please correct me. I intend to answer all the false accusations and fallacies in this article if you would so permit me.
    First, I would like to deal with the "Bible-only" theory. Before we get to far into this issue, I first need to know how do you, personally, know which books of the Bible are indeed inspired. This seems to be an embarrassing question for the Protestant. There is no listing in the Bible telling us which books are inspired, and which are not. Even if there was a listing, how could we know, infallibly, that that 'listing' was inspired. In fact, how do you even know that the Gospel of Mark (a non - Apostle) is written by Mark??, or that Matthew wrote his Gospel?? Neither tell us who wrote them, but we accept their validity, why? There are very few, if any, Protestants who have read all the books that were circulated in the first century that claimed to be inspired. They haven't read the Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, etc. Can you tell me why these are not included in the Bible and the book of Philemon is?? If you argue that everyone always accepted the canonical books as inspired, you run into a difficulty. You see history shows us that indeed, the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline writings, 1 Peter, 1 John were always considered inspired by the whole Church. The problem is that Revelation, the epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John were considered by many in the Church to be spurious. Yet they are now wholeheartedly accepted, why?? If you get over that hurdle there are still more to jump. For instance, the Bible itself, does not teach that it alone is to be the sole rule of Faith !!! Yes, there are passages that say the Scripture is "profitable", "useful", "Inspired", to which all Catholics cry "AMEN" , but none that claim it is ALL you need. Jesus never commanded His Apostles to write anything!! I think that is important, don't you? He told them to "Preach", not to write. The writings we have came forth from orally transmitted teachings. St Paul says to "Stand firm, hold fast to the traditions you have received from us, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (1 Thess 2:15). You see, there are 2 types of transmissions here! One is the spoken word, and the other is the spoken word put to writing!! I see still other problems with this idea of "Sola Scriptura", but I don't want this letter to turn into book, so I'll end it here. If I haven't made myself clear, please let me know. I'll be looking for a response from you in the near future. May the Lord bless you.



[Catholic Apologetics Network] [MP3's] [Files] [peter_and_papacy] [peter_and_papacy_2] [papacy] [peter] [historic_christianity] [origin_church] [bible_church_1] [bible_church_2] [church_1] [church_2] [deutero] [deutero_2] [bible_history] [sola_1] [bible_church_3] [sirach] [1_tim] [hierarchy] [women_priests_1] [women_priests_2] [celibacy] [eucharist] [baptism] [infant_baptism] [mary_ark] [mary_eve] [mary_mediatrix] [mary_typology] [mary_prayers] [purgatory_1] [purgatory_2] [purgatory_3] [sproul_1] [sproul_2] [sproul_3] [sproul_4] [fathers] [purgatory] [mary] [sola_scriptura] [cri_1] [cri_2] [cri_3] [cri_4] [church_11] [church_21] [church_3] [church_4] [margaret_1] [margaret_2] [margaret_3] [pius_xii] [romancult] [freedom] [ecumenism] [answers] [indulgences] [galileo] [inquisition] [luther_said] [pilgrims] [puritans] [faith_of_fathers] [inventions] [Links] [The Fathers] [Catechism] [Deacon Tim]