Don't be ridiculous, the Bible Canon was not established until 4th century. How could the New Testament be written already before the Church was born? The Gospels were written after Lord Jesus died.
Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Perhaps, but first listen to what the Bible has to say about traditions:
- "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
- "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)
Would Sola Scriptura have worked in history? Perhaps, but first think of these facts:
- paper was not invented until the third century;
- the printing press was not invented until ~AD1450;
- the Bible Canon was not established until 4th century;
- most the people in the old days were illiterate.
Therefore, how could the faithful during the period AD33 - AD1450 read the Bible by themselves???
Does Sola Scriptura work in the present? It might, but how come so many, many Bible-alone Christians had to ask their pastors on different issues. The pastors: "The Bible is the SOLE infallible authority, we don't need the Pope ...but in case you don't understand anything, ask ME."
View attachment 246342
Dr Scott Hahn: "Sola scriptura is not biblical".
Your parroted polemic has
already been attempted and basically exposed as fallacious, as once again it is both based upon strawman of SS, as well as misappropriating Scripture, both of which which is what sophists as Staples so much rely on. But as it typical in these treads, once you refute a number of posters another shows up posting the same specious arguments. Therefore by the grace of god I will reiterate and sometimes expand on what has been said in refutation.
Is Sola Scriptura biblical? Perhaps, but first listen to what the Bible has to say about traditions:
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)
And which text you enlist in support that your church is also teaching the oral word of God as the apostles did, but which is simply not what these texts support.
1. Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do.
2. You can only presume that these traditions were not also written, or would be, and unless they were then you cannot tell us what these traditions precisely were. You only other alternative for certainty of what these traditions were rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Which doctrine itself much rests upon tradition, and the false presupposition that being the historical magisterial discerners and stewards of Holy Writ means they are the assuredly correct proclaimers and interpreters of it.
However, even ensured correctness as per a certain criteria (which a broken watch of mine has) is not the same thing as the wholly inspired word of God, which has a anointing of power all its own. (Hebrews 4:12)
Would Sola Scriptura have worked in history? Perhaps, but first think of these facts:
- paper was not invented until the third century;
- the printing press was not invented until ~AD1450;
- the Bible Canon was not established until 4th century;
- most the people in the old days were illiterate.
Therefore, how could the faithful during the period AD33 - AD1450 read the Bible by themselves???
Which is simply a fallacious argument for it only attacks with the practicality of SS, not the status and sufficiency of Scripture. The status of a book that provides all the info and helps that one needs to complete a college course is not negated simply because only 10% have access to it and can read it to others.
A SS preacher can lead a church even if only one copy of the Scriptures are available. That would impugn the corporate practical application of SS, however it no more negates the status and sufficiency of Scripture in being and providing what it claims any more than the status and sufficiency of the Law was impugned by a lack of copies and literacy.
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul, and making wise the simple, rejoicing the heart, enlightening the eyes, enduring for ever, more to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb; moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)
But none of these qualities and the supreme status of the Law (a term which is used broadly to include wisdom lit.) are impugned by the reality that it needs preachers to provide it.
As for practical application, and your argument that "most the people in the old days were illiterate, Therefore, how could the faithful during the period AD33 - AD1450 read the Bible by themselves?" presumes that SS necessarily means one must be able to read, but which is not so. Even a 10% literacy rate is more than sufficient for the rest to hear the word, and in due times to have time to study if they learn to read.
And while SS holds that all the necessary light can be found in Scripture, including (as has been
documented ) by being logically deduced, and by the due use of ordinary means, and affirms church councils as what settles a matter, yet the sufficiency of SS does not mean that it formally provides all that is needed, from reason to reading, but which it materially provides for, affirming such. Yet SS is usually understood as not fully applicable until a complete canon was established.
Which leads to your next objection, "the Bible Canon was not established until 4th century," and which while true as regards a somewhat general settled canon, fist, this does not mean all the books of Scripture did not exist or were not recognized by multitudes, while as for indisputable certitude via church council,
this would not take place until after the death of Luther in 1546 (which fact is also contrary to Rc propaganda).
However, the lack of a complete canon in no way impugns the supreme status of Scripture, in which God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31) Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)
And as
abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
As for the sufficiency claim of SS as applying before the NT was complete and the canon established, from what i have read SS only fully is to pertain to the after that establishment. Yet consider also that the alternative to SS, that of the church effectively being the sure supreme standard on faith and morals, and providing what is needed for both, also cannot be said to exist prior to a certain time in the history of the people of God.
And Westminster states is that, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." (Westminster confession)
However, again, this does not mean Scripture formally provides all things necessary for this knowledge, which would require that Scripture provide (as said) even the ability to reason and read, as well as the aid of the Holy Spirit and church councils themselves (which need Westminster affirms and Scripture materially provides for).
In addition, OT Scripture itself materially provides for wholly inspired revelation being recognized and written and established as authoritative, and thus a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ.
Therefore, while SS is not be fully applicable while as yet men were speaking and writing as wholly inspired of God, yet the supremacy of Scripture was already established by the time of Christ, and the Scriptures provided for men such as the apostles speaking and writing as wholly inspired of God.
But what Scripture does not provide for is the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), and whereby souls assuredly know what is from God, but which was not how a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ.
Note also that WC states that what is "necessary" is provided, and which even Adam and Eve had. For God has always provided man what was necessary for the obedience required, and judges man in the light of what man had. Yet God does give more grace, and "unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." (Luke 12:48)
And what we have is Scripture as being the assured word of God as regards public revelation. And unless Rome speaks as wholly inspired of God then they are not a replacement for Moses and apostles in this regard.