Bible, Tradition, Canon, & “Sola Scriptura” (Index Page)

BibleRosary
Photograph by Chris Sloan, 28 Nov. 2009 [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]
*****

Table of Contents


* * *
I. Relationship of the Bible to the Church

II. Tradition (Apostolic)

III. Sola Scriptura (Scripture as the Only Infallible Authority)

IV. Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture

V. Material and Formal Sufficiency of Scripture / Rule of Faith

VI. The Canon of Scripture

VII. Deuterocanonical Books (So-Called “Apocrypha”)
*
VIII. Biblical Archaeology / Israel
*
IX. Alleged Biblical Contradictions and Difficulties
* * * * *

I. RELATIONSHIP OF THE BIBLE TO THE CHURCH
***

Apologetics-Oriented Biblical Commentary on Philippians (RSV) [1998]

Apologetics-Oriented Biblical Commentary on Colossians (RSV) [1998]

Laymen’s Greek & Hebrew Bible Resources for Free [1-22-02; linked sources added on 11-28-16]

“Why Don’t Catholics Read the Bible?” [6-26-02]

Catholic “Three-Legged Stool”: Scripture, Tradition, & Church: Dialogue with an Anglican on the Catholic Rule of Faith (vs. Jon Jacobson) [10-31-02]

The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete / Interpreter + Bible Passages that the Church has Definitively Interpreted [9-14-03]

“Biblical Evidence” from the Catholic Point of View [2-1-08]

Bibles & Catholics, Sunday School?, Memorization, Etc. [9-25-08]

Books by Dave Armstrong: Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers [4-18-09]

How Do Catholics Approach & Interpret Holy Scripture? [6-17-09]

Catholic Interpretation of Scripture (Hermeneutics / Exegesis): Resource List (Links) [6-28-09]

Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther? (+ later Facebook discussion) [6-15-11]

Reply to a Lutheran on Tradition & the Patristic Rule of Faith [1-10-12; additions on 2-20-18]

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Dialogue on Authoritative Bible Interpretation in the New Testament (vs. Reformed Baptist Elder Jim Drickamer) [1-14-17]
*
Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura [originally July 2003; somewhat modified condensation: 4-5-17]
*
Catholics R More Biblical Than Protestants? (Dialogue) (vs. Dustin Buck Lattimore) [5-3-17]
*
The Analogy of an Infallible Bible to an Infallible Church [11-6-05; rev. 7-25-15 and 6-7-17; published at National Catholic Register: 6-16-17]
*
*
*
*
 
II. TRADITION (APOSTOLIC) 
 
***

Classic Reflections on Tradition, Sola Scriptura, & the Canon [9-14-92]

Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition (dialogue w James White) [June 1996]

Dialogue on “Tradition” in the New Testament (vs. Dr. Eric Svendsen) [1996]

Apostolic [Quasi-] Protestantism?: Dialogue with Eric Svendsen [6-26-96]

Dialogue on “Perspicuous Apostolic Teaching” (vs. James White) [May-June 1996]

“Tradition” Isn’t a Dirty Word [late 90s; rev. 8-16-16]

Books by Dave Armstrong: Bible Conversations: Catholic-Protestant Dialogues on the Bible, Tradition, and Salvation [June 2002]

William Webster vs. Tradition, Development, & Truth [4-10-03]

“Moses’ Seat” & Jesus vs. Sola Scriptura (vs. James White) [12-27-03]

Refutation of “Catholicism Refuted”: Pt. II (Tradition, Papacy) [12-10-04]

James White’s Critique of My Book, The Catholic Verses: Part I: The Binding Authority of Tradition [12-30-04]

Refutation of James White: Moses’ Seat, the Bible, and Tradition (Introduction: #1) (+Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI) [5-12-05]

Bible and Tradition Issues: Reply to a “Bible Christian” Inquirer (Particularly Regarding St. Augustine’s Position) [3-1-07]

Nature of Tradition & Church: (vs. Two Lutheran Pastors) [10-9-07] 

Martin Luther’s Remarkably “Pro-Tradition” Strain of Thought [1-18-08]

Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Luther’s Anti-Traditional Elements [2-10-09]

Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Oral Tradition [2-20-09]

25 Brief Arguments for Binding Catholic Tradition [2009]

Biblical Evidence for True Apostolic Tradition (vs. “Traditions of Men”) [6-23-11]

Bible on Submission to Church & Apostolic Tradition + Biblical Condemnation of the Rebellious & Schismatic Aspects of the Protestant Revolt [8-27-11]

Biblical Evidence for the Oral Torah [10-18-11]

 “Tradition” Is Not Always a Bad Word! [written specifically for children: 12 or younger; 2-12-14]
*
*
Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura [originally July 2003; somewhat modified condensation: 4-5-17]
*
Dialogue on Oral Tradition & Apostolic Succession (vs. John E. Taylor) [5-17-17]
*
*
*
 
 III. SOLA SCRIPTURA
***

Debate: Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-1-03]

Ten Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-1-03]

Sola Scriptura: Unbiblical!: Refutation of Dr. Richard Bennett [9-15-03]

Refutation of Dr. John MacArthur’s Sola Scriptura Defense: “The Sufficiency of the Written Word” [9-15-03]

Biblical Argumentation: Same as Sola Scriptura? [10-7-03]

Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura [10-10-03]

“Moses’ Seat” & Jesus vs. Sola Scriptura (vs. James White) [12-27-03]

Sola Scriptura and Private Judgment Are Logically Circular [1-28-04; slight modifications and abridgment on 9-5-17]

Difficulties of Authority: Luther, Calvin, & Protestantism [4-11-04]

Sola Scriptura is Self-Defeating and False if Not in the Bible (vs. Kevin Johnson) [5-4-04]

Jerusalem Council vs. Sola Scriptura [9-2-04]

Analyzing Luther / Protestant Traditions of Men Inevitable [9-29-04]

Levites and the Old Covenant System vs. Sola Scriptura [4-9-06]

OT Levites & Priests: Closer to Sola Scriptura or Catholicism? [4-9-06]

Catholic Rule of Faith and Binding Authority: Old Testament Analogies [4-9-06]

Cardinal Newman: “The Principle of Continuity between the Jewish and Christian Churches” (Catholic Authority) [4-9-06; posted to Facebook on 2-15-17]

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman on the Authoritative Interpretation of God’s Revelation (Over Against Sola Scriptura) [4-9-06; posted to Facebook on 2-15-17]

1 Timothy 3:15: Sola Scriptura or Visible Church Authority? [10-2-07]

Sola Scriptura Debate (vs. C. Michael Patton) [10-19-08]

Sola Scriptura: Catholic Scholars vs. Apologists on its Illogical Nature? (E.g., Joseph Ratzinger [Pope Benedict XVI], Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Henri de Lubac) [11-13-08]

St. Paul’s Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura [4-3-10]

Dialogue with a Lutheran: Church Fathers & Sola Scriptura (vs. Nathan Rinne) [10-13-11]

Mass Baptisms in Acts & Future Binding Church Decrees (Cardinal Wiseman) [1-10-12]

Sola Scriptura, 2 Tim 3:16-17, & “Man of God” [1-27-12]

Biblical Argumentation is NOT Sola Scriptura [5-8-12]

Books by Dave Armstrong: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura [May 2012]

Answer to Sola Scriptura “Prooftexts” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 & Romans 16:15-16 (vs. David T. King) [6-26-12]

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura [originally July 2003; somewhat modified condensation: 4-5-17]
*
Catholics R More Biblical Than Protestants? (Dialogue) (vs. Dustin Buck Lattimore) [5-3-17]
*
David T. King Ignores Sola Scriptura Biblical Disproofs (Incl. lengthy analysis of 2 Peter 1:20: “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”) [11-13-17]
*
*
The New Testament Canon is a “Late” Doctrine [National Catholic Register, 1-22-18]
*
* 

IV. PERSPICUITY (CLEARNESS) OF SCRIPTURE

***

Baptismal Regeneration: Central Doctrine, According to Luther & Lutheranism [1996]

Dialogue: Clearness (Perspicuity) of Scripture and the Formal Sufficiency of Scripture (vs. Carmen Bryant) [6-8-00]

The Sufficiency & Perspicuity of Scripture & the Trinity [6-16-03; slightly revised on 1-20-04]

Luther: Scripture Easily Grasped by “Plowboys” [11-1-08]

Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity of Scripture [2-12-09]

25 Brief Arguments Regarding Biblical “Clearness” [2009]

The Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture: A Summary [1-22-10]

The Anglican Newman (1833-1838) on the Falsity of Perspicuity (Clearness) of Holy Scripture [3-7-11]

The Bible: “Clear” & “Self-Interpreting”? [February 2014]

Perspicuity (Clarity) of Holy Scripture [11-21-15]

Protestant Unity on “Central” Doctrines?: Baptism as Test Case (vs. Methodist Philosophy professor Jerry Walls) [1-9-17]

Dialogue on Authoritative Bible Interpretation in the New Testament (vs. Reformed Baptist Elder Jim Drickamer) [1-14-17]

Biblical Interpretation & Clarity: Dialogue w an Atheist [5-26-18]

*

V. MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE / RULE OF FAITH
***
*
The Sufficiency & Perspicuity of Scripture & the Trinity [6-16-03; slightly revised on 1-20-04]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura [originally July 2003; somewhat modified condensation: 4-5-17]
*

VI. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

***

*
Development of the Biblical Canon: Protestant Difficulties [2-26-02 and 3-19-02, abridged with slight revisions and additions on 7-19-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The New Testament Canon is a “Late” Doctrine [National Catholic Register, 1-22-18]
*

VII. DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS (SO-CALLED “APOCRYPHA”)

***

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
 
VIII. BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY / ISRAEL
***
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
IX. ALLEGED BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES   
[see also related papers in the Atheist and Agnostic section]
 

Master List / General / Resources

***

*
*
*

Jesus 

***

*
*
*
*
*
Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Swine, & Atheist Skeptics (vs. Jonathan MS Pearce) [7-25-17]
*
*
*
*
*
Death of Judas: Alleged Bible Contradictions Debunked (vs. Dave Van Allen and Dr. Jim Arvo) [9-27-07]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Defending the Historical Adam of Genesis (vs. Eric S. Giunta) [9-25-11]
*
*
Adam & Eve of Genesis: Historical & the Primal Human Pair? (vs. Bishop Robert Barron) [11-28-13]
*
*
“Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?” (Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Crisis Magazine, 11-24-14)
*
*
*

Massacres and Wars of Annihilation / God’s Judgment

***

Last Updated on 16 August 2018.

*****

 

"Thanks. I did find that; had actually already cited it and forgot. LOL It's enshrined ..."

Seidensticker Folly #4: Jesus Never Existed, ..."
"How surprised he will be on judgment day, then (minus repentance). And he won't be ..."

Seidensticker Folly #8: Physics Has Disproven ..."
"I am not sure if this url will get you there ?http://www.patheos.com/blog..."

Seidensticker Folly #4: Jesus Never Existed, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave, I have a couple questions.

    I'm currently in a Jesus of Nazareth class taught at a University by an Anglican Priest. He does not believe in Biblical innerancy. Am I right in thinking Catholicism does believe the Bible is 100% inerrant? I've read a couple encylicals – one in the early 1900s and another in the 1960s if I remember right – where the Pope stated that the Bible was 100% inspired and thus 100% inerrant. Am I right in thinking this is actually a *dogmatic* article of faith?

    Second, if this is so, how are certain contradictions reconciled? For instance, today he read us all 4 Gospel accounts of the Empty Tomb. They differed substantially. And also there are the differing accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts. In one telling the men did not hear Christ speaking, and in the next they did. How are these things dealt with by the Church?

    Thanks again, and God bless.

  • Hi Chris.
    If you google church fathers,and then click church fathers home,after that go to saint augustine ,and one of the many many things which he wrote is called.- The Harmony of the Gospels ,in there you will find the answers which you are looking for about what some people believe to be contradiction in the bible.
    And yes you are right that the catholic church believe that the bible is inerrant and is inspired by the Holy Spirit and as though it has God as it`s author.
    GBU

  • Hi Chris again.
    For example in the same encyclopedia,when you go to church fathers,you could also check John Crysostom`s explanations of the acts of the apostles in homelies 19 and 47 , as for your first question plz check Augustine`s harmony of the gospels, book III .
    GBU

  • The Church holds that the manuscripts are inerrant and infallible, yes. Some minor errors may have slipped in due to faulty copying.

    Most so-called "contradictions" are easily explained as complementaries in some fashion.

    See the final section: "Alleged Biblical Contradictions and Difficulties" — of my Bible, Church, Tradition, & Canon page:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/11/bible-church-tradition-canon-index.html

  • Coul you answer these questions (about tradition, scripture etc.?

    http://www.bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can’t answer

  • I'm sure I could (and have). I've written more about sola Scriptura and related issues than anything else, including a book with 620 separate arguments in it.

    As a matter of policy, I no longer interact with anti-Catholics, because of the futility of all such efforts for ten years online, excepting historically important ones like Luther and Calvin.

  • Dave,

    I've researched the supposed "contradictions" and find all the accusations unfounded. I do not blame you either for not engaging in such pointless arguments. Anyone who wants to study and learn has all the tools they need at your site, which, as I think I've said before, is one of the reasons I'm becoming Catholic.

    Thanks Dave, I'm trying to spread the word about your amazing site.

  • Thanks for the plugs!

  • Sdhshh wrote , Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can’t answer.
    Woahahahaha , one of the funniest statements i have ever read…lol

  • Dave,

    William Webster claimed that the famous quote from Basil the Great regarding many of our beliefs and customs coming from unwritten tradition is referring to liturgical practices, not dogma like the Trinity or baptismal regeneration. He says that Basil demonstrates this by mentioning customs like baptizing three times, using oil at baptism etc. Was Basil really referring to dogma coming from unwritten tradition, or just customs?

  • Dunno without looking. But William Webster hardly has any credibility in historical matters, as I have shown at length, twice:

    Refutation of William Webster's Fundamental Misunderstanding of Development of Doctrine

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2004/02/refutation-of-william-websters.html

    Refutation of Protestant Polemicist William Webster's Critique of Catholic Tradition and Newmanian Development of Doctrine (vs. William Webster)

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/08/refutation-of-protestant-polemicist.html

  • Not very helpful concerning my question.

  • Beliefs and customs underlying or reflected in liturgical practices cannot be separated from dogma. Therefore, Mr. Webster's observation and your question make no sense. You're asking Dave to make a distinction between liturgy/rites and doctrine. He can't do this. Nobody can.

    St. Basil would have regarded every liturgical act as meaningful and purposeful. That meaning and purpose are what is called "dogma." For example, the dogmatic catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, like all ancient catechesis, was based on an exposition of the sacraments.

    No ancient Christian ever attempted to argue or prove "baptismal regeneration," because to all of them the purpose of baptism was so obviously regeneration that this didn't require demonstration. Besides, it never occurred to anybody to deny baptismal regeneration, and so no explicit defense of the concept or refutation of error was needed.

    Only sometime after the start of the Reformation did "baptismal regeneration" become an issue. That was because some people, for the first time in history, ceased believing that rites were effective.

    If you were to ask a Christian in Basil's day if he believed in baptismal regeneration, he wouldn't even understand your question. It would be like asking him if he believed he had been born or was currently alive. Baptism was regeneration. It was as simple as that.

    You need to stop thinking like a typical 21st-century American if you want to understand ancient Christianity, including, of course, the Christianity of the New Testament. For example, ancient people did not intentionally engage in empty ritual play-acing. For them, every rite accomplished what it meant. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother with it. A rite wasn't a "symbolic" public demonstration, as Evangelical baptisms are today.

    So, you see, for us Catholics, who carry on ancient Christianity, William Webster's observation is fundamentally misguided and pointless.

  • Typo: "play-acing" should be "play-acting."