Best way to explain fallacy of sola scriptura to a protestant?

[ArmyMatt]

It seemed like it was more of a non-denominational understanding of: scripture is the authority, but I trust my pastor’s theological training, and the Holy Spirit guiding me towards truth if I hear the pastor saying falsehood in some way/shape/form. Does that make sense?

I would ask him where exactly does the Scripture say that.

 

[Radagast]

I didn’t know that it came from the Muslims.

I don't believe that is correct.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

.

 

[Radagast]

I’ve had the chance to explain to my friend the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism on a macro level. But, I had a hard time when it came to both of our presuppositional authorities: his being scripture and trusting his pastor and using discernment and believing that the Holy Spirit guides him towards truth.

The Protestant view of Sola Scriptura, can be described roughly as follows (quotes from the Belgic Confession):

We confess that this Word of God was not sent, nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith. And that afterwards God, from a special care, which he has for us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit his revealed word to writing; and he himself wrote with his own finger, the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe, unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein. For, since the whole manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For, since it is forbidden, to add unto or take away anything from the word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear, that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, "Try the spirits whether they are of God." Likewise, "if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house."

Historically, Sola Scriptura was articulated as a response to Catholic doctrines (such as that of Purgatory) which the Reformers felt were not based on Scripture. However, the Reformers still saw a role for Ecumenical Councils and so forth as a way of settling disputes about Scripture.

The only ways to argue someone out of Sola Scriptura in the traditional sense is to either:

• argue that infallible prophetic revelation at the same level as Scripture still exists; or
• argue that the Church has the authority to define doctrines that can not be found in Scripture.

Some people who claim to follow Sola Scriptura in fact have a "me and my Bible and nobody else" view that the Reformers would not have recognised. That view is sometimes called Solo Scriptura to distinguish it from the Reformation view.

If it is Solo Scriptura that you are arguing against, you will find allies among many famous Protestants, both living and dead.

 

[AMM]

I think you have to be more specific with what type of protestant your friend is, and what he really believes when he says Sola Scriptura. I know protestants whose view of sola scriptura is nearly(!)-indistinguishable from Orthodoxy's view of Scripture and Tradition, and other protestants who only care how they interpret the Bible (not even how their pastor or modern-day protestant scholars interpret things)

 

[Radagast]

I know protestants whose view of sola scriptura is nearly(!)-indistinguishable from Orthodoxy's view of Scripture and Tradition

You can probably construct an argument for something pretty close to the Orthodox view of Scripture and Tradition that is made up entirely from quotes by famous Reformed Protestants.

 

[SingularityOne]

I would ask him where exactly does the Scripture say that.

Yeah, that’s a good question. Thanks

 

[SingularityOne]

I think you have to be more specific with what type of protestant your friend is, and what he really believes when he says Sola Scriptura. I know protestants whose view of sola scriptura is nearly(!)-indistinguishable from Orthodoxy's view of Scripture and Tradition, and other protestants who only care how they interpret the Bible (not even how their pastor or modern-day protestant scholars interpret things)

Yeah, I mean, I posted his view a few responses ago. But, it’s mainly scripture, his pastor (and his pastor’s theological training), and the Holy Spirit that he relies on.

 

[ArmyMatt]

argue that the Church has the authority to define doctrines that can not be found in Scripture.

the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in Scripture. nowhere does the Scripture say that God is Trinitarian or that God is Three Persons in One Nature.

also, nowhere does the Scripture say that all doctrines must be found in the Scriptures.

 

[SingularityOne]

the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in Scripture. nowhere does the Scripture say that God is Trinitarian or that God is Three Persons in One Nature.

also, nowhere does the Scripture say that all doctrines must be found in the Scriptures.

Keep them coming. These are very helpful Fr. Matt. Thank you again.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I didn’t know that it came from the Muslims.

Protestantism and Islam - Wikipedia

They both had a common enemy.

 

[AMM]

Yeah, that’s a good question. Thanks

it is a good question, but one which, when I was a Lutheran, I had a response to. Even supported by a church father quote (though I can't recall who). In essence, Scripture says "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" and also "faith comes through hearing and hearing through the Word of God" (I'm butchering these quotes, I'm sure). So -- the argument goes -- whatever does not come through the Word of God cannot be a full doctrine of faith, and although you are free to believe it, you cannot hold it against another person if they do not.

Obviously, we would have a number of counter responses to that (the one that jumps to my mind is that the Word of God is a Person with a body (the Church), not only the Scriptural texts).

These questions definitely can get people thinking, but it's not a "gotcha" type of thing.

 

[Radagast]

the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in Scripture.

I would respectfully disagree.

And I think I had better bow out of the thread at this point.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would respectfully disagree.

And I think I had better bow out of the thread at this point.

you can disagree all you want. Trinity, 3 Persons in One Nature/Essence, Triune God, etc aren't found in Scripture.

 

[Xenophon]

I didn’t know that it came from the Muslims.

Yep, because of the belief that the Koran is co-eternal with Allah. That is why, although it may be translated, it's only truly 'the Koran' in the Arabic. Or something like that. And for that reason, the Koran has absolute authority as it is the only thing just as eternal as Allah.

 

[SalemOrthodox]

I found this article useful (and well thought out) when I was researching the early Church last year. One paragraph pasted below.
Sola Scriptura

Perhaps the most daunting feature of Protestantism — the feature which has given it a reputation of stubborn resiliency is its numerous differences and contradictions. Like the the mythical Hydra, its many heads only multiply, and though it is a worthy task to seek to understand and confront these heresies individually, this is not the key to their defeat. In order for one to understand the unique beliefs of each individual sect, it requires a knowledge of the history and development of Protestantism in general, a great deal of research into each major stripe of Protestant theology, worship, etc., as well as a lot of contemporary reading in order to understand some of the more important cross-trends that are currently at work (such as liberalism, or emotionalism). Even with all this, one could not hope to keep up with the new groups that spring up almost daily. Yet for all their differences there is one basic underlying assumption that unites the amorphous blob of these thousands of disparate groups into the general category of "Protestant." All Protestant groups (with some minor qualifications) believe that their group has rightly understood the Bible, and though they all disagree as to what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible — on your own! — apart from Church Tradition. If one can come to understand this belief, why it is wrong, and how one is rightly to approach the Scriptures, then any Protestant of any stripe may be engaged with understanding. Even groups as differing as the Baptists and the Jehovahs Witnesses are really not as different as they outwardly appear once you have understood this essential point — indeed if you ever have an opportunity to see a Baptist and a Jehovahs Witness argue over the Bible, you will notice that in the final analysis they simply quote different Scriptures back and forth at each other. If they are equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in the discussion because they both essentially agree on their approach to the Bible, and because neither questions this underlying common assumption neither can see that their mutually flawed approach to the Scriptures is the problem. Herein lies the heart of this Hydra of heresies — pierce its heart and its many heads at once fall lifelessly to the ground.