What do you think?
Rate this book
Not by... #2
Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
Since the time of Martin Luther, Protestants have claimed that Scripture alone is the final, infallible rule of faith for man. In doing so, they have also claimed that Sacred Tradition and Church Authority, although helpful, are not infallible and therefore cannot serve as authorities on par with Scripture. Is this a correct understanding of Scripture, Tradition and the Church, and does either Scripture or Tradition teach that sola scriptura should be the sole guiding rule for decisions on faith and morals? A thorough investigation into this controversy reveals that the answer is a resounding, NO. As never before, the Catholic Church has been called upon to be the defender of Scripture and preserver of truth in modern times. Not by Scripture Alone will set the biblical and historical record straight. But more important, as you learn the real truth about Scripture, Tradition, and the Church, this book will offer you the means to come to a very deep relationship with God and know how best to glorify him on this earth. This book is the single most important systematic, logical, sustained, direct, multifaceted treatment of this central issue that I know of. - Peter Kreeft
656 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1998
7 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 14, 2022
Fraco. Sofismático ao extremo!
January 25, 2014
This is, I believe, the best book available on the topic of Sola Scriptura from a Catholic perspective. A collection of essays by several authors, some essays are more popularly written while others are decidedly more scholarly. Not all of the essays are persuasive, but others provide devastating critiques of the Protestant position.
March 20, 2019
My best review of this book was written to David in a chat room, which shows the weakness in Sunenis' book and its major flaw: "Not by Scripture Alone:" In this public post proves where the rubber of Sungenis meets the road of theology for personal development and to be saved, and how it inescapably proves to be the product of evil.
David, and resident hairytic and so called brother defending not that by which you had to be saved*, you said, "It is pure eisegesis to try to extend that "principle" to a collection of books that those books themselves never mention, nor did the authors of each individual piece know or anticipate that their work would be grouped into a collection."
That is patently false for so many reasons. Peter contends that Paul's writings were Scripture: "And deem° the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just-as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you° according to the wisdom which was given to him; as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these things; in which some things are hard to perceive, which the unlearned and unstable ones are twisting, as they also twist THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES to their own destruction. Therefore beloved, KNOWING BEFOREHAND these things, guard° yourselves, in order that you° might not fall from your° own firmness, having been led away in the error of the immoral. But grow° in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Glory is to him, both now and toward the final day of this world. Amen. MLV. (2 Pe 3:15–18).
AND I have asked you, David if ever there was a post you made that wasn't against the Lord's church?" [It's patently obvious that you have stopped growing, and participate only in lying errors WITH those who need to be saved. You're too busy fighting the Lord's church to show them any of their errors.]
THE CORE principle of not adding anything to God's Word or taking anything out, is taught beginning from Genesis 3:1(b), "Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” which clearly points back to the Word of God at 2:16-17, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Show us how you can argue that from this beginning God's Word that it was NOT binding? If the passages mentioned had been removed from the Word or not been spoken by the Lord, would they have either bound or loosed the command? Then how important is God's Word to be treasured, stored up and unaltered, amended or changed? WHAT's the CORE doctrine here? Does is it continue? You bet it does!
Written language has since the *beginning* had the form of being narrowly construed, for the words that were used, as any other word could have been used other than the ones that were chosen by the writer. Same as in the law, of a statute, it must be narrowly construed for ONLY the words that it has used. If you need legal authority I shall give it.
Paul mentioned that had the Law not used the word, "Covetousness," that it wouldn't have been sin for him to have committed it.
But such esoteric matters need not confuse anyone, as we have these FEW following imperical commands all relating to the subject at hand; not adding to God's Word or leaving anything out. Guiding us inescapably to the truth of "sola scriptura." Please take these passages and show how they have actually given permission to be ignored as towards the CORE PRINCIPLE of God's Word with this one guiding principle from the OT: "EVERY WORD OF GOD IS TRIED. He is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you and you are found a liar." MLV. (Pr 30:5–6).
AND from the NT: "Now brethren, I fashioned these things to myself and Apollos because of you°; in order that you° may learn in us not to have a mindset to go beyond what has been written; in order that no one should be arrogant on behalf of one against the other. For* who is making you the judge? But what do you have which you did not RECEIVE? But if you also RECEIVED it, why are you boasting as HAVING NOT RECEIVED IT?" MLV. Co 4:6–7).
The Perfect present tense cannot be denied!!! That means it's to always continue until the end of the world like Mt. 28:18-20. Note your own boasting about your own futile ideas which puts God's Word down to a level no Christian believes as to the imperfection of God's Word. You openly here scorned the Word of God saying,
"As a human being in the 21st century, neither one of us can accurately verify how "original" any of our copies of copies of copies of manuscripts are. They have been altered, amended and changed.
[!!!!😱!!!!] Add to his words in Proverbs? Show that the writer had the OT scriptures, and not Oracles from the prophets or any other means of hearing God in mind. You cannot. Your argument on 1 Corinthians has been critiqued, found lacking, and explained to you by more than one person.
Therefore show how these Scripture do not support the unalterable Word of God."
The people who have critiqued and found 1 Co 4:6 lacking are people like ROMAN Catholic Robert A. Sungenis who gives your very argument in his book, "Not by Scripture Alone," pages 138-167, overall expending over 600 pages trying to refute the Scriptures AFTER THE FACT of having added so many sacraments, traditions, and anathemas to his church making himself out to be God. There is not a single Scripture in all of his 600 pages that gives authority for the ROMAN (or Orthodox, etc.), Churches sacraments, traditions, and anathemas, and you're right there aiding the enemy of the Lord's church while hiding behind a baptism from which you have become greater, puffed up and in serious error.
Your empty words and works say, "My purpose here is to correct the RIGID RELIGIONISTS who wish to require others to follow their interpretations into their group or be said to be damned." Those "rigid religionists" are men and women who simply speak the Word, all of which you have found fault with and gang up with the Churches who are the enemy of the Lord's body against us. So, find in these passages a common CORE doctrine that does NOT exalt God's Word as holy writ of commands we have no authority to supersede, by religion or practice.
Sola Scriptura is surely the CORE doctrine observed in the bible to neither add nor take any of God's word away. Beginning even in Genesis 2:16, Deut 4:2, 12:32, 26:14, 29:9, Josh 1:7-8, 22:2, 5, 23:6, 2 Sam 16:23, Ki 17:37, 21:8-9,(a), 1 Ch 28:8, 9, 2 Ch 33:8-9, Psl 12:6, 18:30, Prov 30:5-6, etc., etc., etc. In the NT we find the same CORE teachings: Mt 5:18, 15:3-9, 22:29-32, 24:24, Mk 7:13, 12:24, John 10:35, 17:17, Acts 11:3, Rom 3:1-2, 1 Co 1:10, 2:13, 4:6, 14:34-35, Gal 3:16, 1 Pe 4:11, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 John 9, Rev. 22:18-19.
*David, review of all your "contributions" and count the number of them which have a spirit of denial, lack of obedience, and double mindedness. I don't mind that you're on this public group, but am required to call you out and to invite anyone to check your history on this group. You now claim to have supported the doctrine of baptism FOR remission of sins and the Lord's Supper, but I'm almost sure you have denounced that THAT baptism is what indwells us with the Holy Spirit whom we must have to go to heaven, Rom 8:1-17. Your witnessed purpose is actually to divide rather than for reconciliation of those in error to Christ who have never obeyed the gospel, and who have very definite doctrines that will take them to hell. I pray you will repent. Acts 3:19.
David, and resident hairytic and so called brother defending not that by which you had to be saved*, you said, "It is pure eisegesis to try to extend that "principle" to a collection of books that those books themselves never mention, nor did the authors of each individual piece know or anticipate that their work would be grouped into a collection."
That is patently false for so many reasons. Peter contends that Paul's writings were Scripture: "And deem° the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just-as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you° according to the wisdom which was given to him; as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these things; in which some things are hard to perceive, which the unlearned and unstable ones are twisting, as they also twist THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES to their own destruction. Therefore beloved, KNOWING BEFOREHAND these things, guard° yourselves, in order that you° might not fall from your° own firmness, having been led away in the error of the immoral. But grow° in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Glory is to him, both now and toward the final day of this world. Amen. MLV. (2 Pe 3:15–18).
AND I have asked you, David if ever there was a post you made that wasn't against the Lord's church?" [It's patently obvious that you have stopped growing, and participate only in lying errors WITH those who need to be saved. You're too busy fighting the Lord's church to show them any of their errors.]
THE CORE principle of not adding anything to God's Word or taking anything out, is taught beginning from Genesis 3:1(b), "Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” which clearly points back to the Word of God at 2:16-17, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Show us how you can argue that from this beginning God's Word that it was NOT binding? If the passages mentioned had been removed from the Word or not been spoken by the Lord, would they have either bound or loosed the command? Then how important is God's Word to be treasured, stored up and unaltered, amended or changed? WHAT's the CORE doctrine here? Does is it continue? You bet it does!
Written language has since the *beginning* had the form of being narrowly construed, for the words that were used, as any other word could have been used other than the ones that were chosen by the writer. Same as in the law, of a statute, it must be narrowly construed for ONLY the words that it has used. If you need legal authority I shall give it.
Paul mentioned that had the Law not used the word, "Covetousness," that it wouldn't have been sin for him to have committed it.
But such esoteric matters need not confuse anyone, as we have these FEW following imperical commands all relating to the subject at hand; not adding to God's Word or leaving anything out. Guiding us inescapably to the truth of "sola scriptura." Please take these passages and show how they have actually given permission to be ignored as towards the CORE PRINCIPLE of God's Word with this one guiding principle from the OT: "EVERY WORD OF GOD IS TRIED. He is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he reprove you and you are found a liar." MLV. (Pr 30:5–6).
AND from the NT: "Now brethren, I fashioned these things to myself and Apollos because of you°; in order that you° may learn in us not to have a mindset to go beyond what has been written; in order that no one should be arrogant on behalf of one against the other. For* who is making you the judge? But what do you have which you did not RECEIVE? But if you also RECEIVED it, why are you boasting as HAVING NOT RECEIVED IT?" MLV. Co 4:6–7).
The Perfect present tense cannot be denied!!! That means it's to always continue until the end of the world like Mt. 28:18-20. Note your own boasting about your own futile ideas which puts God's Word down to a level no Christian believes as to the imperfection of God's Word. You openly here scorned the Word of God saying,
"As a human being in the 21st century, neither one of us can accurately verify how "original" any of our copies of copies of copies of manuscripts are. They have been altered, amended and changed.
[!!!!😱!!!!] Add to his words in Proverbs? Show that the writer had the OT scriptures, and not Oracles from the prophets or any other means of hearing God in mind. You cannot. Your argument on 1 Corinthians has been critiqued, found lacking, and explained to you by more than one person.
Therefore show how these Scripture do not support the unalterable Word of God."
The people who have critiqued and found 1 Co 4:6 lacking are people like ROMAN Catholic Robert A. Sungenis who gives your very argument in his book, "Not by Scripture Alone," pages 138-167, overall expending over 600 pages trying to refute the Scriptures AFTER THE FACT of having added so many sacraments, traditions, and anathemas to his church making himself out to be God. There is not a single Scripture in all of his 600 pages that gives authority for the ROMAN (or Orthodox, etc.), Churches sacraments, traditions, and anathemas, and you're right there aiding the enemy of the Lord's church while hiding behind a baptism from which you have become greater, puffed up and in serious error.
Your empty words and works say, "My purpose here is to correct the RIGID RELIGIONISTS who wish to require others to follow their interpretations into their group or be said to be damned." Those "rigid religionists" are men and women who simply speak the Word, all of which you have found fault with and gang up with the Churches who are the enemy of the Lord's body against us. So, find in these passages a common CORE doctrine that does NOT exalt God's Word as holy writ of commands we have no authority to supersede, by religion or practice.
Sola Scriptura is surely the CORE doctrine observed in the bible to neither add nor take any of God's word away. Beginning even in Genesis 2:16, Deut 4:2, 12:32, 26:14, 29:9, Josh 1:7-8, 22:2, 5, 23:6, 2 Sam 16:23, Ki 17:37, 21:8-9,(a), 1 Ch 28:8, 9, 2 Ch 33:8-9, Psl 12:6, 18:30, Prov 30:5-6, etc., etc., etc. In the NT we find the same CORE teachings: Mt 5:18, 15:3-9, 22:29-32, 24:24, Mk 7:13, 12:24, John 10:35, 17:17, Acts 11:3, Rom 3:1-2, 1 Co 1:10, 2:13, 4:6, 14:34-35, Gal 3:16, 1 Pe 4:11, 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 John 9, Rev. 22:18-19.
*David, review of all your "contributions" and count the number of them which have a spirit of denial, lack of obedience, and double mindedness. I don't mind that you're on this public group, but am required to call you out and to invite anyone to check your history on this group. You now claim to have supported the doctrine of baptism FOR remission of sins and the Lord's Supper, but I'm almost sure you have denounced that THAT baptism is what indwells us with the Holy Spirit whom we must have to go to heaven, Rom 8:1-17. Your witnessed purpose is actually to divide rather than for reconciliation of those in error to Christ who have never obeyed the gospel, and who have very definite doctrines that will take them to hell. I pray you will repent. Acts 3:19.
September 13, 2024
SEVEN CATHOLIC WRITERS' DETAILED CRITIQUE OF THE "BIBLE ALONE" DOCTRINE
Editor Robert Sungenis (born 1955), is the founder of the Bellarmine Theological Forum and Catholic Apologetics International. He has written very important works of Roman Catholic apologetics such as 'Not by Faith Alone: A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification,' 'Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass,' and 'How Can I Get to Heaven?: The Bible's Teaching on Salvation-Made Easy to Understand.'
He has also been criticized for making anti-Jewish remarks, as well as for advocating Geocentrism (i.e., that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and not vice versa; see his book 'Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right'). The authors included are Patrick Madrid, Philip Blosser, Mark Shea, Robert Fastiggi, Peter Stravinskas, Joseph Gallegos, and Sungenis himself.
Sungenis states in his Preface to this 1997 book, "this book will thoroughly investigate the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, and allow you to determine if it can indeed stand under its own weight. Our conclusion is that it cannot, and we demonstrate this by turning over every rock and looking into every crevice of the issue. We hope you come to the same conclusion." (Pg. xxiii)
Madrid begins by stating, "Catholics need to realize just how untenable sola scriptura is. The first step is to see the tremendous advantage gained by asking Protestants to prove sola scriptura from the Bible. Instead of being put on the defensive when purgatory or the Real Presence or some other doctrine is challenged by Protestants demanding that they be proven by Scripture, the Catholic should begin by asking, 'where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?'" (Pg. 2)
He adds, "The fatal flaw of sola scriptura is that it is not taught in Scripture. This fact has been made clear to me in the several debates on sola scriptura in which I have participated against Protestant apologists." (Pg. 19) He also notes, "Another problem for sola scriptura is the canon of the New Testament. There is no 'inspired table of contents' in Scripture that tells us which books belong and which ones do not. That information comes to us from outside Scripture." (Pg. 22)
Blosser points out, "Nor will it do to fall back on the assertion that Protestant conservatives, at least, are united on 'essentials'; for the question as to what is 'essential' and what is not, is itself part of what is at issue. Lutherans consider baptism essential, while Quakers do not. Baptists consider an 'adult' profession of faith to be an essential prerequisite for baptism while Presbyterians do not. Presbyterians consider the predestination the elect to be an essential doctrine, but Free Methodists do not. Nazarenes consider personal holiness an essential prerequisite for salvation, while Lutherans do not... Episcopalians consider sacraments essential, but the Salvation Army does not... The Dutch Reformed consider creeds and confessions essential, but Baptists do not.... Q.E.D.---we rest our case." (Pg. 97-98)
Shea argues, "the Old Covenant was put into effect through angels while the New Covenant was put into effect by the Incarnate god himself. However, this faces the advocate of Bible-only revelation with a serious problem. For there is no place in the entire Old Testament which teaches the Mosaic Covenant was given through angels. Where then do these New Testament figures get this teaching? From extrabiblical Tradition known, not only to these writers, but to other Jews as well... Jude does the same thing---twice! First, he speaks of the time the archangel Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses (v. 8-9). His Old Testament reference? There is none. For it is a tradition found only in the non-canonical book, 'The Assumption of Moses.' Evidently, both Jude and the author of 'The Assumption of Moses' regard this extrabiblical Tradition as important." (Pg. 178-179)
Later, he admits, "It is quite true that Mary is not explicitly described as a perpetual virgin anywhere in Scripture... However... the Catholic Church says the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary also summarizes apostolic belief." (Pg. 203) He adds, "neither does the term 'Trinity' show up in the Church's records until about 150 years after the apostles. This does not mean that the deity of Christ was INVENTED at that time." (Pg. 205)
Sungenis contends, "the charge of 'nebulous' ... can also be leveled against Scripture itself. Protestants seem to have a pristine concept of Scripture as if it just dropped down pure and undefiled from heaven, but this is far from the case. With 78% of New Testament verses being in some form of corruption... The Catholic Church can declare... what variants in Scripture are the true Scripture." (Pg. 256)
He states, "often the Bible... does not address a particular issue. When it does address an issue, sometimes it does so without giving a definitive judgment (slavery; capital punishment; alcohol usage; Rahab's lie; Jephthah's oath); often we cannot tell whether its language is figurative or literal (the creation story; the book of Revelation; Joshua's stopping of the Sun; the Eucharist); it leaves out information on important practices (infant baptism...";
"...it seems contradictory or unclear on certain topics (divorce and remarriage... where unbaptized infants go upon death; predestination... the role of women; celibacy)... it does not tell us which Old Testament practices are to be modeled and which are to be ignored... it does not specify whether God would give additional revelation after Scripture was completed; it does not tell us which books are canonical or who wrote some of the books. The list can go on and on." (Pg. 292-294)
This book will be "must reading" for anyone interested in Catholic apologetics and doctrinal issues.
Editor Robert Sungenis (born 1955), is the founder of the Bellarmine Theological Forum and Catholic Apologetics International. He has written very important works of Roman Catholic apologetics such as 'Not by Faith Alone: A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification,' 'Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass,' and 'How Can I Get to Heaven?: The Bible's Teaching on Salvation-Made Easy to Understand.'
He has also been criticized for making anti-Jewish remarks, as well as for advocating Geocentrism (i.e., that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and not vice versa; see his book 'Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right'). The authors included are Patrick Madrid, Philip Blosser, Mark Shea, Robert Fastiggi, Peter Stravinskas, Joseph Gallegos, and Sungenis himself.
Sungenis states in his Preface to this 1997 book, "this book will thoroughly investigate the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, and allow you to determine if it can indeed stand under its own weight. Our conclusion is that it cannot, and we demonstrate this by turning over every rock and looking into every crevice of the issue. We hope you come to the same conclusion." (Pg. xxiii)
Madrid begins by stating, "Catholics need to realize just how untenable sola scriptura is. The first step is to see the tremendous advantage gained by asking Protestants to prove sola scriptura from the Bible. Instead of being put on the defensive when purgatory or the Real Presence or some other doctrine is challenged by Protestants demanding that they be proven by Scripture, the Catholic should begin by asking, 'where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?'" (Pg. 2)
He adds, "The fatal flaw of sola scriptura is that it is not taught in Scripture. This fact has been made clear to me in the several debates on sola scriptura in which I have participated against Protestant apologists." (Pg. 19) He also notes, "Another problem for sola scriptura is the canon of the New Testament. There is no 'inspired table of contents' in Scripture that tells us which books belong and which ones do not. That information comes to us from outside Scripture." (Pg. 22)
Blosser points out, "Nor will it do to fall back on the assertion that Protestant conservatives, at least, are united on 'essentials'; for the question as to what is 'essential' and what is not, is itself part of what is at issue. Lutherans consider baptism essential, while Quakers do not. Baptists consider an 'adult' profession of faith to be an essential prerequisite for baptism while Presbyterians do not. Presbyterians consider the predestination the elect to be an essential doctrine, but Free Methodists do not. Nazarenes consider personal holiness an essential prerequisite for salvation, while Lutherans do not... Episcopalians consider sacraments essential, but the Salvation Army does not... The Dutch Reformed consider creeds and confessions essential, but Baptists do not.... Q.E.D.---we rest our case." (Pg. 97-98)
Shea argues, "the Old Covenant was put into effect through angels while the New Covenant was put into effect by the Incarnate god himself. However, this faces the advocate of Bible-only revelation with a serious problem. For there is no place in the entire Old Testament which teaches the Mosaic Covenant was given through angels. Where then do these New Testament figures get this teaching? From extrabiblical Tradition known, not only to these writers, but to other Jews as well... Jude does the same thing---twice! First, he speaks of the time the archangel Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses (v. 8-9). His Old Testament reference? There is none. For it is a tradition found only in the non-canonical book, 'The Assumption of Moses.' Evidently, both Jude and the author of 'The Assumption of Moses' regard this extrabiblical Tradition as important." (Pg. 178-179)
Later, he admits, "It is quite true that Mary is not explicitly described as a perpetual virgin anywhere in Scripture... However... the Catholic Church says the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary also summarizes apostolic belief." (Pg. 203) He adds, "neither does the term 'Trinity' show up in the Church's records until about 150 years after the apostles. This does not mean that the deity of Christ was INVENTED at that time." (Pg. 205)
Sungenis contends, "the charge of 'nebulous' ... can also be leveled against Scripture itself. Protestants seem to have a pristine concept of Scripture as if it just dropped down pure and undefiled from heaven, but this is far from the case. With 78% of New Testament verses being in some form of corruption... The Catholic Church can declare... what variants in Scripture are the true Scripture." (Pg. 256)
He states, "often the Bible... does not address a particular issue. When it does address an issue, sometimes it does so without giving a definitive judgment (slavery; capital punishment; alcohol usage; Rahab's lie; Jephthah's oath); often we cannot tell whether its language is figurative or literal (the creation story; the book of Revelation; Joshua's stopping of the Sun; the Eucharist); it leaves out information on important practices (infant baptism...";
"...it seems contradictory or unclear on certain topics (divorce and remarriage... where unbaptized infants go upon death; predestination... the role of women; celibacy)... it does not tell us which Old Testament practices are to be modeled and which are to be ignored... it does not specify whether God would give additional revelation after Scripture was completed; it does not tell us which books are canonical or who wrote some of the books. The list can go on and on." (Pg. 292-294)
This book will be "must reading" for anyone interested in Catholic apologetics and doctrinal issues.
Want to read
December 26, 2009Listed by Patrick Madrid in the Reading Plan of Search and Rescue in Phase 2 (Intermediate).
April 17, 2017
A great work and comprehensive!
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews