Can you refute this sola scriptura argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James1231
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James1231

Guest
“Surprised by what? A defence of sola scriptura”

www.monergism. com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Surprise dbyWhat.html

I found this posting while I was searching sola scriptura on google. Jake magee defenses Sola Scriptura here. How can I refute his claim?
 
Last edited:
I do not see an argument in the post you made. Could you rephrase it?
 
The article (which you forgot to link 😉 ) is long an discursive. Maybe you could summarize his argument for Sola Scriptura, and then we could help you out.
 
There’s so much in that article it would perhaps be easier for you to explain what it is you’re having difficulty with. Magee is all over the place, to the point where it is actually hard at times to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly what he believes on certain matters. This is on top of his occasional strawmanning.
 
James1231 said:
I found this posting while I was searching sola scriptura on google. Jake magee defenses Sola Scriptura here. How can I refute his claim?
Click to expand...
I agree with the others, this article states an argument (Scott Hahn said “Sola Scritura” is not found in the bible) then defends something else (that scripture is beneficial for teaching).

We do not contend that scripture is useless. That is not our position.
 
I ran through the article really quickly. It seems like he is basing his arguments on the what certain people said in a one on one interview with Patrick Madrid. From my understanding this book is compiled of chapter long conversion stories.

So I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this guy wasted a lot of time refuting statements that technically had no theological context or arguments presented with them. Dr. Hahn, Dr. Sungenis and Mr. Staples weren’t presenting theological arguments in the book so he isn’t refuting a full picture of their reasoning.

Also the author relies on you allowing him some leeway in order for his argument to work. Like he say…
These definitions point to the meaning of our English word “sufficiency.”
Click to expand...
They do? Really? Why? Sure we might use these words interchangeable in our modern English language but that doesn’t mean they have the exact same meaning. Adequate is an adjective that describes a condition of something meeting the minimum requirement, but just barely. Sufficient is a word that describes a condition of being as much as is needed.

Basically him asking for this inch actually gives him a mile.

Finally, what is this adequate for? Every good work. This is talking about being adequate in your moral life. St. Paul isn’t saying scripture supplies us with comprehensive instruction in all matters of Christian doctrine, worship and ecclesial government.

As for the rest of the article it seemed he was more interested in giving his reasons why the Catholic position is wrong and therefor since they are wrong they can’t prove I am wrong.

He really didn’t give an argument to justify his position. So nothing worthy of refuting here.

God Bless
 
I believe an easy way to refute the whole Sola Scriptura belief is that the Bible didn’t even exist as we know it until about 300 years after Christ. So there’s no way the early Church could have relied on it as the sole pillar of Church teaching. Someone correct me if I’m wrong about anything.
Pax Christi.
 
Salibi said:
I believe an easy way to refute the whole Sola Scriptura belief is that the Bible didn’t even exist as we know it until about 300 years after Christ. So there’s no way the early Church could have relied on it as the sole pillar of Church teaching. Someone correct me if I’m wrong about anything.
Pax Christi.
Click to expand...
I think this is the argument I heard from priests also (on the radio) and it is very solid.
However we probably have to also argue or explain to those believing in Sola Scriptura that the idea that now that we have the Bible it’s still not enough in itself even though it is at the center of the dogma, teachings of the Holy Fathers etc. I don’t know how to argue this as whole except to fight back Sola Scriptura by asking a demonstration that if the prophets, kings and Apostles were instilled by the Holy Spirit to write the Bible then how do we know that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the Holy Church Fathers as well and Synods etc? But I know this is not an argument in itself more like underlining the weakness in the Sola Scriptura reason.
 
Citing from 2 Timothy 3 KJV (BibleHub):

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Catholics affirm this, however somehow our separated brethren have substituted “Only” for “All”.

Also for consideration is the dating of NT Scripture writing. We did not have the Christian Bible in its completed form with the OT & NT canon. Since Protestants believe that only Scripture/the Bible is authoritative & that this was the practice of the Early Church, what then did they rely on historically in the absence of a completed Bible as their authority? Oftentimes whenever I hear Protestants argue for Scripture as the sole authority, they talk as if every Christian had access to a Bible, carried a Bible around with them, & that every Christian interpreted it individually. History demonstrates otherwise.

The writer states: “However, there are a number of problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, when Protestants say that the Bible alone is sufficient as a normative guide for Christians, we don’t necessarily mean that nothing else could be sufficient.”

Th reality is that while this may be true as stated & in practice, it is also true that most Protestants take the view that “…it’s not true if it’s not in the Bible…” This was my experience both as a former Protestant & as a Catholic now. Protestants generally take a literal interpretation of the verse.
 
Last edited:
Salibi said:
I believe an easy way to refute the whole Sola Scriptura belief is that the Bible didn’t even exist as we know it until about 300 years after Christ. So there’s no way the early Church could have relied on it as the sole pillar of Church teaching. Someone correct me if I’m wrong about anything.
Pax Christi.
Click to expand...
Well… “technically” from their perspective it would be 1500 years before a “reliable” canon was available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top