Sola Scriptura and Basic Illogic

[Michie]

One of the biggest things that separates Protestants from other Christians is their belief regarding the authority of Scripture. Protestants will claim that only Scripture is infallible—the only thing that cannot be wrong.

Protestant apologist James White defined sola scriptura in a debate with Jerry Matatics in 1992. Here he is making his case:

The doctrine of sola scriptura simply states that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. . . .
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church, or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith, and the Church is always subject to the word and is constantly reformed thereby.

There are a few things that a Catholic would agree with White on here. For instance, no Catholic will claim that Scripture’s authority relies on someone believing that those specific books are inspired. The Church did not make the canon inspired; the Church articulated which books are inspired. Regardless, in this article, I will explain why the claim that Jesus taught that only Scripture is infallible makes little sense logically.

Continued below.

Sola Scriptura and Basic Illogic

If you believe that Scripture alone is the only infallible source of faith, then what kind of God does that make Jesus into?

www.catholic.com

 

[Michie]

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a “standard of truth”—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that.

www.catholic.com

 

[Michie]

Sola Scriptura Is Not So Easy to Kill

It's not as easy as saying, "Sola scriptura isn't in the Bible!" Protestants have an answer to that, and Catholics have to be able to meet that answer.

www.catholic.com

 

[Michie]

The Best Argument for Sola Scriptura?

Catholics might be surprised at this unexpected argument for sola scriptura (that only the Bible speaks for Christianity). Here's how to beat it.

www.catholic.com

 

[Michie]

Why I'm Catholic: The Foundational Error of Sola Scriptura

One the great church historians of the nineteenth ce...

www.catholic.com

 

[Michie]

Why I Don't Believe in Sola Scriptura

A group of Baptist seminary students invited me to s...

www.catholic.com

 

[Michie]

The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura​

Author: James Akin
THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF SOLA SCRIPTURA
James Akin

Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological," cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985).

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.

A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone—or everyone—else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.

Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, "born again" believer. There are simply too many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians.

Continued below.

The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

 

[narnia59]

Did not the noble Bereans in Acts rightly decide for themselves if Paul's teaching was of God or not? All of us should have that kind of humble spirit in us.

If you actually put the passage with the Bereans in context it disrproves sola-Scriptura. And the Thessalonians were the ones who were practicing it. That the Bereans prove sola-Scriptura is a fallacy, they actually deny it.

St. Paul argued with the Thessalonians from Scripture. They had the Old Testament Scriptures. He was trying to teach them that instead of a conquerer who would liberate them from the Romans, the Messiah who was prophesied in the Old Testament was to be a suffering servant. He also told them something that couldn't be validated in their Scriptures at all -- that the person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled these prophecies and had risen from the dead. That's the ORAL testimony of the Church. Instead the Thessalonians would only accept what they could know from written Scripture (sola-Scriptura) and their own interpretation of it rejecting the teaching authority of the Church (sola-Scriptura).

The Bereans on the other hand "received the word with great joy." And what was the "word"? It was the logos, the oral proclamation of the Gospel as presented by the teaching authority of the Church in the person of St. Paul. They accepted the fact that the person of Jesus Christ fulfilled those prophecies and had risen from the dead. A practice of sola-Scripture would have required them to reject that information because they couldn't validate it in Scripture. They never could have become Christians if they were truly adhering to sola-Scriptura because they wouldn't have been able to accept the oral presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

They do indeed search the Scriptures to learn about the suffering servant Paul presents to them as the Messiah. Perfectly natural since all their lives they had been told they meant something different. They must have been pretty excited to find out otherwise. But they, unlike the Thessalonians didn't rely on their own interpretation but rather accepted the teaching authority of the Church for an accurate interpretation. So when the Scriptures say "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so." -- the reason they were more "noble" is because they "received the word with all eagerness". They were willing to go beyond what was written to accept the oral teaching of the Church.

You said above the Bereans didn’t “trust” St. Paul so had to check things out for themselves. If that were the case the ORAL proclamation of the Gospel and the correct interpretation of their OT passages regarding the Messiah would have fallen on deaf ears just like with the Thessalonians. They were indeed more noble than those who practiced sola-Scripture.

 

[narnia59]

That's not the sense of the Act 17:10-12 to wit:

Acts 17:10-12
10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
NIV

They clearly did not take Paul's word at face value. Yes, they received the gospel with great eagerness but also took the time and effort to verify Paul's message. And why wouldn't any pious Jew do that? Didn't their own Law (OT scriptures) pronounce a curse on anyone who trusts in princes or men? And didn't their Law also tell them that every man is liar? And didn't their own Law warn them to never add or subtract from it? And didn't Jesus rebuke the Jews for not knowing the scriptures? And how often did Jesus tell the Jews that everything written in the scriptures about him must be fulfilled? Therefore, they did what was prudent and God-honoring by going directly to his Word to fact-check Paul.

The ‘word’ they received with great joy was the ORAL proclamation of the Gospel — that the person of Jesus Christ had fulfilled those Scriptures and risen from the dead.

That ‘’word” was nowhere to be found in their Scriptures to validate what Paul said. They simply accepted that without being able to verify it in Scripture at all. Yet you and others want to make them the poster children that we are supposed to go by Scripture alone. If they actually had gone by Scripture alone they would have rejected what Paul told them about the person of Jesus Christ because they couldn’t “fact check” him on that.

 

[narnia59]

Thirdly, another fact that is overlooked is that all scripture it not created equal in terms of perspicuity. Didn't Jesus teach that he speaks in parables to conceal truth from outsiders? Yet, look how often he personally explained the scriptures to his disciples. He explained! He did! Did Jesus ever appeal to another authority when he taught? Were not people, in general, awe-struck by his teaching because he spoke as one having authority? Jesus was quite the unique Rabbi; for unlike other rabbis, he relied solely on the Word of God and his personal understanding of it.

Another fallacy, that Jesus “relied” on Scripture. That thought places the God-breathed (Scripture) above God Himself! Jesus had no dependency on Scripture!

And he shows that quite clearly. Two examples:

If Jesus had relied on Scripture alone he never could have said ‘You have heard that it was said eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.’

Or the woman caught in adultery. The Scripture said she should be stoned. But he didn’t rely on that.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Remember:
​

Congregational Forum Restrictions​

Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum.

 

[Doran]

Hi, Y'ALL

I can't really post here since I don't share the core beliefs of Catholics and this isn't a debate forum. So, no sense in continuing. Everyone have a great day.