Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Root of Jesse]

Your definitions are all over the place, so whatever you say can mean whatever you want it to.
I would envy that if I didn't value integrity.

So you say, but it's not true. The Catholic faith is nothing if not integrated.

 

[Rick Otto]

So you say, but it's not true. The Catholic faith is nothing if not integrated.

Thanks for the laugh.
Malapropism can be hilarious.

 

[Wgw]

Just to clarify what RC means "word of God" is to them what was written and spoken. RC/EO/P all differ on those things. So, while it's nice sentiment, it's not necessarily true and certainly isn't provable.

I myself fail to see the need to define this phrase in a manner other than John 1:1-14. To the extent it is abused as a term for scripture I am reasonably certain I have encountered chaps on these fora who regard the Bible as uncreated.

 

[Standing Up]

I myself fail to see the need to define this phrase in a manner other than John 1:1-14. To the extent it is abused as a term for scripture I am reasonably certain I have encountered chaps on these fora who regard the Bible as uncreated.

If you fail, then it's because you don't know. Here's to what I refer from RC:

97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

So, RC has abused the term also?

 

[Wgw]

Not neccessarily; the use there is sufficiently ambiguous as to go both ways. I would be inclined to press them on the issue if I saw a use contradictory to their own Last Gospel.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

During the course of my discussions with Protestants over Catholic doctrine, it has become clear that until the concept of sola scriptura (Bible alone) is refuted, we will be in a state of perpetually frivolous debate.

Sleight of hand, a tool used by magicians to trick one into believing something unreal. Such you employ.

Your first sleight of hand. The deceptive title that implies that Sola Scriptura means just the Bible alone is sufficient. You take this definition to the extreme in reason 5.1, arguing that during the time that the Bible did not exist, the Church could not exist or be enlarged. Understand that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The words of the New Testament were spoken and written to the early church. Understand that the authority of the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit inspired words in it, not the fact that at some point in time they were canonized. The words of Jesus: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near" were just as much the inspired word of God from when he first said them, through the many times apostles repeated them until they were recorded in the New Testament book of Matthew. Don't put the cart in front of the horse.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

And now the second sleight of hand in the OP. In every one of your five "indisputable" reasons you refer to something to support your postulate. You quote something of such authority that no one has questioned its use or even doubted its authority. How ironic that you quote scripture in your attempt to prove scripture not supreme, which BTW is the most important aspect of Sola Scriptura. You could use a couple of minutes on Wikipedia to learn this.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

If the OP was speaking the truth, than denominations that followed Sola Scriptura are not sufficient. That means all us Protestants are going to hell. I would like to see him prove that.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

1. The Bible Never Claims to be the Sole Authority​

If Jesus intended written scripture to be the sole source of authority for His followers after His ascension, it stands to reason that He or the apostles would have made that claim.

First let's correct your statement against what Sola Scriptura means.

1. The Bible/Scripture DOES Claim to be the SUPREME Authority.

How many times is scripture of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament?
How many times are prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Testament?
You quote Acts 17:11 and totally miss the point that Paul's message was tested against scripture for truth.

There is only one that is always true, God. Since scripture is his word, it is the only thing that we have that is always true.

As far as the idea of Papal infallibility, I would love to see scripture that proves that one. I would also like to see the miracles and signs that go with being an apostle. I believe a third witness to that truth should be Old Testament prophecy declaring it. If one wishes the Pope to prove his truth with fruit, I think that is way too debatable. I think the current one too political/politically correct.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

2. The Bible Endorses Holy Tradition
​

Unlike sola scriptura, the authority of holy tradition is thoroughly stated throughout the New Testament. Some examples are:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. - (1 Corinthians 11:2 - NRSVCE)

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." - (2 Thessalonians 2:15 - NRSVCE)

"Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us." - (2 Thessalonians 3:6 - NRSVCE)

"So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ." - (Romans 10:17 - NRSVCE)

Ever hear the expression; the devil is in the detail. Expand your quote to see I highlighted the most important detail that escaped your argument.

Just because scripture mentions "traditions" does not mean all traditions are true. In fact Jesus sharply rebuked the man-made traditions that had infected the church of his time. So what teachings/traditions does scripture say are true? Those from Jesus and the apostles.

By your logic because Paul said he used letters to also teach the church, that means any letter could be used to expand the Bible. NOT!

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

3. The Early Church Fathers Never Advocated for Sola Scripture​

​

What you are really saying is that your church for a long long time taught of authority in traditions.

Understand that scripture notes false teachers present in the first century of the Church. Saying that you believed something a long long time is no proof of its truth. I will repeat again that even Peter on whom your churches rest Apostolic Succession was noted in scripture with an incorrect doctrine. Also note that there were disputes among the apostles. How is this possible if they are inerrant?

 

[thecolorsblend]

First let's correct your statement against what Sola Scriptura means.

"Sola Scriptura" translates to "Scripture Alone". Quite why Protestants need to use Latin vocabulary words to describe their own doctrine, while one of history's great ironies, is beside the point. Now, the funny part is that a lot of Protestants will fudge on that point for whatever reason. I'll come back to this in a second.

1. The Bible/Scripture DOES Claim to be the SUPREME Authority.

Your own examples show that it does not do so explicitly. And in any case your statement sounds more like Prima Scriptura (more Latin) to me than Sola Scriptura.

As far as the idea of Papal infallibility, I would love to see scripture that proves that one.

Why should a Catholic (or anybody) use your terms and limitations to explain and teach their doctrine? It's as silly as someone asking you to teach Sola Scriptura using non-Scriptural resources.

Of course, the fact that you cannot do so even using Sacred Scripture is yet another irony.

If one wishes the Pope to prove his truth with fruit, I think that is way too debatable. I think the current one too political/politically correct.

I'm interpreting this as a criticism. Assuming I'm right, that's a quite bizarre criticism to make given that the papacy is inherently a political office.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

4. Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit
​

From a purely logical standpoint, anything that consistently yields negative results is bad. This concept is not just logical, but an explicit teaching of Jesus, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:18 NRSVCE) Therefore, if the concept of sola scriptura is 'good' then it should yield 'good' results; however, this is not the situation. Sola scriptura has led to tens of thousands of divisions within the church which is emphatically against scripture.

If division in the church is bad than take a look in the mirror at all the non Protestant churches you have split into. In fact these splits came before the Protestant divide. Your argument applies even more to yourself because of your belief in Apostolic Succession and inerrancy of bishops/popes. How is it possible for all the churches that hold to that doctrine that everything they say spiritually is God's true word and yet they have different doctrine?

When three people are in a room arguing and they all are convinced they are right because they are always right because of some right given to them, will there ever be agreement? What is the chance that one of them is always right? More likely that none of them are always right.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Conclusion
If we truly believe that God is living and active in our lives today, then limiting His divine revelation to a group of XX written works outside of His explicit mandate is heresy. God's word is not stagnant and neither is his authority; they are living and active, revealed through holy tradition and holy scripture​

What you fail to acknowledge here is that prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit and given to many, but prophecy does not carry the same level of authority as scripture. Such is how God instituted it so don't argue with me about it.​

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

"Sola Scriptura" translates to "Scripture Alone".

Now you think to teach Martin Luther how to use Latin. He had a much better grasp of the language than you do. Can you understand the concept of how short "cute" expressions are used to name an often more complicated thesis? Imagine how many words are used to defend these two words, Papal Infallibility. Maybe you should try to understand the meaning of expressions instead of reading every sentence one word at a time. While you are at spend a couple of minutes on Wikipedia with the thread author to learn at least a basic understanding of what Sola Scriptura means.

Your own examples show that it does not do so explicitly. And in any case your statement sounds more like Prima Scriptura (more Latin) to me than Sola Scriptura.

Is there an argument here where you refute something I postulate or is this just your opinion? I hope that the thread author whom I replied to is able to refute my post with a better argument than you just presented.

Why should a Catholic (or anybody) use your terms and limitations to explain and teach their doctrine? It's as silly as someone asking you to teach Sola Scriptura using non-Scriptural resources.

Silly is what you write. Should I start a thread attacking Papal Infallibility using a made up definition that the Pope doesn't sin and everything he says is true? I am positive Mr. Catholic would have a problem with that.

I'm interpreting this as a criticism. Assuming I'm right, that's a quite bizarre criticism to make given that the papacy is inherently a political office.

You have a most bizarre understanding of the word political. Where I live we have something called the separation of church and state. The church would be religions and their representatives. The state would be the laws, those in political office and those employed to enforce the laws.

 

[Wgw]

If the OP was speaking the truth, than denominations that followed Sola Scriptura are not sufficient. That means all us Protestants are going to hell. I would like to see him prove that.

The Orthodox would disagree with this interpretation. Yes, we are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, no, this does not mean Protestants are inherently damned.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Now you think to teach Martin Luther how to use Latin.

He had a much better grasp of the language than you do.

Be that as it may, it hasn't stopped modern Protestants from misusing his concepts.

But let's cut to the chase. You have told me that my understanding of Sola Scriptura (ie, the idea that Scripture alone is the only authoritative source for religious insight) is in error. What, then, is Sola Scriptura?

Can you understand the concept of how short "cute" expressions are used to name an often more complicated thesis?

Such as "rhetorical question"?

Is there an argument here where you refute something I postulate or is this just your opinion?

Was "Your own examples show that it does not do so explicitly" too subtle? That wasn't a rhetorical question, btw.

I hope that the thread author whom I replied to is able to refute my post with a better argument than you just presented.

You seem a bit upset.

Silly is what you write.

Yes that's true.

You have a most bizarre understanding of the word political.

Are you just saying that because I identified the Pope as a legitimate head of state?

Where I live we have something called the separation of church and state.

Assuming you refer to the United States, no you don't. What you have is an amendment to your Constitution which says Congress cannot pass a law which establishes a state religion. Similarly Congress cannot pass a law which interferes with the free exercise of religion.

The government cannot use the force of law to influence religion. Religious groups can, however, influence the government.

If you live somewhere other than the United States, I'll take your word for it.

 

[Albion]

But let's cut to the chase. You have told me that my understanding of Sola Scriptura (ie, the idea that Scripture alone is the only authoritative source for religious insight) is in error. What, then, is Sola Scriptura?

You came pretty close to defining it right there--Scripture Alone is the defining authority for determining doctrine. It does not mean any of the other notions that opponents of SS (and those who simply don't know what it means) often say about it. For example, that it means everyone is free to believe whatever he personally thinks, or that tradition has no place in church life, or that SS means you cannot do anything unless it's specifically approved of somewhere in the Bible.

 

[thecolorsblend]

You came pretty close to defining it right there--Scripture Alone is the defining authority for determining doctrine. It does not mean any of the other notions that opponents of SS (and those who simply don't know what it means) often say about it. For example, that it means everyone is free to believe whatever he personally thinks, or that tradition has no place in church life, or that SS means you cannot do anything unless it's specifically approved of somewhere in the Bible.

... Except that sounds more like Prima Scriptura than Sola Scriptura to me.

 

[Albion]

... Except that sounds more like Prima Scriptura than Sola Scriptura to me.

I don't know why it would. The definition as given clearly included the word "Alone."