Counter-argument to bible-only...?

[rcuk]

Jesus was too smart to found His church on a book alone- and we are told to hold fast to the Word, as well as the traditions which were passed down.

I wonder if I could get people’s views on this, additional counter-argument. That, if the New Testament was ‘it’ - then God could not, with His Holy Spirit, inspire, direct, or move us in modern times with ‘updated’ teachings or assistance? Since it isn’t ‘in the Bible’. His church could therefore not, fully at least, stand the test of time.

It is interesting that bible-only protestant churches emerge all the time, and they often claim to be ‘true’ or have some aspect of truth which was missing before. There is only one bible, but it is open to interpretation, which can be mis-interpreted when not represented within the safety walls of the Church.

Setting up an off-shoot church seems, in itself, to be a move against bible-only. Where is it in the bible that one should start an offshoot church in 2014?

It seems that these people who claim to be moved by the holy spirit, to do ‘x’ are invalidating the bible-only claim. The Holy Spirit itself surely refutes this? If bible-alone were enough, there really would be no need for the Holy Spirit to inspire anyone but the sacred authors themselves?

 

[anixx]

Sola Scriptura is refuted by history itself. The Scriptures are a collection of books that where put together by the Church. So if we are to base our faith on scripture alone, then we can say that for about 400 years there was no genuine faith, for it was based on tradition, written or oral. Most of the Church Fathers didn’t agree on the canon of Scripture, in the beginning. But, by 405 the canon was pretty clear, when pope Innocent I sent a list of canonical scripture to a bishop in France.
Another point of view is that Scripture, by itself, is not necessary for salvation. At the time of the first martyrs, like st Stephen, there was not a drop of ink written down from the New Testament. We know this, because Saul was there, who later became the apostle of the gentiles, and he was the first to write.
Also, the apostles used oral tradition at first.
Since, there is no Bible, per se, for almost 400 years, there is no doubt that there was no Sola Scriptura, either. Actually, there was no Sola Scriptura for 1500 years.

 

[Dave_B]

Actually, there was no Sola Scriptura for 1500 years.

You could argue it was even more recent than that, as steam powered printing presses were invented in the early 19th century, and it is only since then that books have become widely available to the public.

 

[Neofight]

I’ve never heard anyone contend that Jesus ever said, or implied, “To enter the Kingdom, when it comes out, you must read the book!” He taught it is how we live, not what we read, that will bring us to everlasting life.

 

[Casilda]

We shared our Catholic faith with protestant friends and asked them to show us in the Bible where it states sola scriptura. They are still looking for that verse. We also told them it was the church that put the Bible together and discussed why Brother Martin took books out of it, so what they have today is less than what was originally put together. Made them think.

 

[JediSisko]

Us a biblical verse with Bible Only Christians, 1 Timothy 3:15. “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Remember that Jesus didn’t write a book to pass around, but instructed the people to go forth and preach.

 

[PJH_74]

I do buy into the argument that the Bible is a snap shot of Christian Theology about 1600 years ago. So in a sense “sola scriptura” and tradition are the same thing. It’s also clear to me that there are things in the Bible that we would not consider a basis for Christian living and things need to move on or be carefully interpreted.

Here’s the thing. If what we really are arguing is tradition only and “sola scriptura” represents an anchor point holding down the advancement of Theology in response to the advancement of time and human experience, what is your own “sola scriptura”? For some it maybe “Solo Vaticana”. For others it might be individual freedom, others tradition.

My point is not to attack or put down anyone here. The point is that we all need to be aware of how we might be keeping God’s Kingdom on earth from breaking out between us. Whatever the points we grab on to as an anchor point in the torrent of Theology, we need to be open to exploring the weakness of these anchor points as much as we are willing to defend them.

 

[pablope]

Jesus was too smart to found His church on a book alone- and we are told to hold fast to the Word, as well as the traditions which were passed down.

I wonder if I could get people’s views on this, additional counter-argument. That, if the New Testament was ‘it’ - then God could not, with His Holy Spirit, inspire, direct, or move us in modern times with ‘updated’ teachings or assistance? Since it isn’t ‘in the Bible’. His church could therefore not, fully at least, stand the test of time.

It is interesting that bible-only protestant churches emerge all the time, and they often claim to be ‘true’ or have some aspect of truth which was missing before. There is only one bible, but it is open to interpretation, which can be mis-interpreted when not represented within the safety walls of the Church.

Setting up an off-shoot church seems, in itself, to be a move against bible-only. Where is it in the bible that one should start an offshoot church in 2014?

It seems that these people who claim to be moved by the holy spirit, to do ‘x’ are invalidating the bible-only claim. The Holy Spirit itself surely refutes this? If bible-alone were enough, there really would be no need for the Holy Spirit to inspire anyone but the sacred authors themselves?

Hm…actually, this is what the Bible says to know the truth…from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Setting up an off-shoot church seems, in itself, to be a move against bible-only. Where is it in the bible that one should start an offshoot church in 2014?

It seems that these people who claim to be moved by the holy spirit, to do ‘x’ are invalidating the bible-only claim

There was one guy on FB who kept on bugging me to join his congregation…so I asked him this:

I asked him how he knows the truth? And does he follow the example of St. Paul"

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

So I asked…the HS should lead him ala St. Paul…so to whom has he submitted what he is telling me as the truth?

And then I asked, and provided this passages:

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

So I asked…who sent him? And who ordained him, following the example of St. Paul?

 

[Dodge_pursuit]

“Like most modern words, ‘heresy’ is used both vaguely and
diversely. It is used vaguely because the modern mind is as averse to
precision in ideas as it is enamored of precision in measurement. It is
used diversely because, according to the man who uses it, it may represent
any one of fifty things.”
- Hilaire Belloc

*Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
* - Matthew 7:13-14

There is truth. And there is error. It is not narrow minded or mean-spirited to believe truth and give witness to it. In fact, holding to an ever-changing set of “truths” and defending none, leads oneself into despair and bears witness to confusion.

The Church was up and running for centuries before anyone knew what constituted “the bible alone.” People were hearing the good news, repenting and being baptized long before the printing press. And millions were coming to faith, praying and confessing their sins, 1,600 years before anyone could hold a bible in their hand and say “everything I need to be saved is in here!” It’s the truth. It leads to division, confusion and more errors. That’s why “sola scriptura” was condemned by the church shortly after it was proposed by excommunicated preachers.

Lots of good articles about this. Here’s one by Patrick Madrid:

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/solascri.txt

Peace to you.