Help in a Sola Scriptura Debate

[thessalonian]

Anybody want to join in on a sola scriptura debate?

Go ahead and listen to the Audio.

I’m Gerald in the discussion.

Serious Catholic apologists please.

Take the time to listen to the audio if you can. At least the first half.

noiseofthunder.com/noise-of-thunder-radio-show/2012/1/26/notradio_12612.html#comments

 

[mdkirkbride]

I can’t find any logic in Sola Scriptura. How do you get the Canon in the first place? I, as a Catholic, believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the 4 Gospels (although there probably greater than 20 Apocryphal gospels that exist(ed)), because the Church says so and has that authority.

Does a Sola Scriptura Protestant believe the New Testament Canon is what it is because the Church says it is, but somehow got OT wrong? Most Protestants believe in the Trinity and Fully Human and Fully Divine, but that isn’t Sacred Scripture, that’s Sacred Tradition. Both are the Word.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Here are some important points to make:

1. Until the late 1800’s the vast majority of earth’s population were illiterate, i.e., they could neither read nor write. How would it make any sense for Jesus to create a Church that depended only upon the written word?
2. When Jesus walked the earth, He taught for three years…orally. Nowhere in Scripture do we see Him writing a book, or commanding anyone else to write a book. He did, however, command the Apostles to go forth and teach “all” that He had taught them. (Matt. 28:20) But, not all that Jesus did or taught was written down. (John 21:25) Only SOME of what was taught orally was written down. And it wasn’t decided until the fourth century, BY the Catholic Church, which writings were to be part of Holy Scripture and which weren’t. If Sola Scriptura had any validity, how did Christians survive the first 4 centuries till the canon of the Bible was created. And how did the vast majority of Christians learn Christ’s truths if they couldn’t read till the late 1800’s? What happened to everyone who lived before them?
3. 2 Peter 1:20 speaks against personal interpretation of Scripture. Yet, this is one of the pillars upon which Protestantism, with its thousands of contradictory, disagreeing denominations are founded. IF there was any validity to Sola Scriptura, everyone would interpret the Bible the same, and there would be, at most, ONE Protestant denomination, not thousands (and counting).
4. Like any book, the Bible needs an authoritative and authentic interpreter. Otherwise, we could just give people books to read on their own, then hand them college diplomas. Want to go to a doctor who got his doctor’s degree that way? Or do you want to drive over a bridge designed by an engineer who got his education that way? Not me! The Bible says that the CHURCH is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15) Nowhere does it say the individual, personally interpreting his/her Bible is anywhere near the same.
5. Give examples of personal interpretation and the constant disagreement upon Sola Scriptura Protestants. Example: Baptists believe that infant baptism is invalid. Lutherans, however, believe that it is valid. Both read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and the Truth cannot contradict itself. So, with thousands of differing Protestant denominations, all founded upon some mere human’s interpretation, how many, at most, can be correct, if any? One. What’s the least? Zero. Simple logic.

 

[ItrustYouLord]

‘The Biblical Basis of the Catholic Faith’ - John Salza

It is stamped with an ‘Imprimatur’, so it is inline with the Catholic Church’s teachings and can be trusted.

This will definitely help!

 

[TraditonRules]

Point 1 is a poor argument to make with a Protestant.

Reason being since the bible was so limited prior to the last couple hundred years plays into the debate that so much was misunderstood …and thus through reading the bible we have learned so much in scripture. For example…Consider that there is so much scripture with Moses and Christ having rebuked those who weighed tradition more than scripture. Biblically speaking scripture is final law as in infallibility.

But regardless tradition is infallibility regardless of bibical quotes that say otherwise. Hope that was not confusing.

Here are some important points to make:

1. Until the late 1800’s the vast majority of earth’s population were illiterate, i.e., they could neither read nor write. How would it make any sense for Jesus to create a Church that depended only upon the written word?
2. When Jesus walked the earth, He taught for three years…orally. Nowhere in Scripture do we see Him writing a book, or commanding anyone else to write a book. He did, however, command the Apostles to go forth and teach “all” that He had taught them. (Matt. 28:20) But, not all that Jesus did or taught was written down. (John 21:25) Only SOME of what was taught orally was written down. And it wasn’t decided until the fourth century, BY the Catholic Church, which writings were to be part of Holy Scripture and which weren’t. If Sola Scriptura had any validity, how did Christians survive the first 4 centuries till the canon of the Bible was created. And how did the vast majority of Christians learn Christ’s truths if they couldn’t read till the late 1800’s? What happened to everyone who lived before them?
3. 2 Peter 1:20 speaks against personal interpretation of Scripture. Yet, this is one of the pillars upon which Protestantism, with its thousands of contradictory, disagreeing denominations are founded. IF there was any validity to Sola Scriptura, everyone would interpret the Bible the same, and there would be, at most, ONE Protestant denomination, not thousands (and counting).
4. Like any book, the Bible needs an authoritative and authentic interpreter. Otherwise, we could just give people books to read on their own, then hand them college diplomas. Want to go to a doctor who got his doctor’s degree that way? Or do you want to drive over a bridge designed by an engineer who got his education that way? Not me! The Bible says that the CHURCH is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15) Nowhere does it say the individual, personally interpreting his/her Bible is anywhere near the same.
5. Give examples of personal interpretation and the constant disagreement upon Sola Scriptura Protestants. Example: Baptists believe that infant baptism is invalid. Lutherans, however, believe that it is valid. Both read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and the Truth cannot contradict itself. So, with thousands of differing Protestant denominations, all founded upon some mere human’s interpretation, how many, at most, can be correct, if any? One. What’s the least? Zero. Simple logic.

 

[David]

But regardless tradition is infallibility regardless of bibical quotes that say otherwise. Hope that was not confusing.

Don’t forget that the follow verse teaches oral Tradition and written Tradition (Scripture) carry equal weight, because the have the same source, which is the Holy Spirit. That is why they can never contradict each other. Pitting oral tradition against Scripture would be unbiblical.

2 Thes 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Peace brother
David

 

[TraditonRules]

Don’t forget that the follow verse teaches oral Tradition and written Tradition (Scripture) carry equal weight, because the have the same source, which is the Holy Spirit. That is why they can never contradict each other. Pitting oral tradition against Scripture would be unbiblical.

2 Thes 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Peace brother
David

When he disputed with the Pharisees on their view of tradition, Jesus proclaimed, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:13)…

 

[David]

When he disputed with the Pharisees on their view of tradition, Jesus proclaimed, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:13)…

Excellent point TR,
Traditions of men nullify the word of God. Only Apostolic Traditions are binding as seen in 2 Thes 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Peace
David

 

[TraditonRules]

Excellent point TR,
Traditions of men nullify the word of God. Only Apostolic Traditions are binding as seen in 2 Thes 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Peace
David

(Matt. 24:35). Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will bemeasured by obedience to Scripture

Touche, mutually.

 

[David]

(Matt. 24:35). Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will bemeasured by obedience to Scripture

Touche, mutually.

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Nice work TR,
It’s important to remember that God words will not pass away, and God’s word is not restricted to Scripture.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written

Peace
David

 

[TraditonRules]

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Nice work TR,
It’s important to remember that God words will not pass away, and God’s word is not restricted to Scripture.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written

Peace
David

Time and Time again as your chosen scripture illustrates it easy to interpret the Bible as final infallibility. Jesus himself proclaims the bible infallibility.

 

[Scoobyshme]

When he disputed with the Pharisees on their view of tradition, Jesus proclaimed, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:13)…

When we speak of Sacred Tradition (capital “T”) we are speaking of the oral transmission of the Word of God. When we speak of tradition in Mark 7:13 (small “t”) we are speaking of mere customs. Same word, different meanings.

 

[thessalonian]

(Matt. 24:35). Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will bemeasured by obedience to Scripture

Touche, mutually.

So Jesus said these words in around 33 AD but Matt wasn’t written until around 50 AD. So if this only means scripture then it would seem that between 33 AD and 50 AD Jesus words did pass away if you require God’s word only to be the written word.

 

[TraditonRules]

So Jesus said these words in around 33 AD but Matt wasn’t written until around 50 AD. So if this only means scripture then it would seem that between 33 AD and 50 AD Jesus words did pass away if you require God’s word only to be the written word.

That would be an excellent debate with Christ if his words are as stated in scripture.

 

[David]

Time and Time again as your chosen scripture illustrates it easy to interpret the Bible as final infallibility. Jesus himself proclaims the bible infallibility.

If you use Scripture to prove Scripture is infallible, it would be a circular argument.

A circular argument by definition is a logical fallacy.

I accept Scripture as authoritative only because I accept the canon of Scripture as authoritative. The canon of Scripture is “Tradition”.

Everyone that accepts Scripture is accepting Tradition, whether they realize it or not.

Hope that helps
Peace
David

 

[thessalonian]

That would be an excellent debate with Christ if his words are as stated in scripture.

I was referring to Matt 24:35 and any words Jesus said. You equate word in Matt 25 with scripture. My point is that from 33 to 50 AD or so his words did pass away until they got written down if in fact word = scripture is true. See if you can wrap your brain around my point. Thanks.

 

[TraditonRules]

I was referring to Matt 24:35 and any words Jesus said. You equate word in Matt 25 with scripture. My point is that from 33 to 50 AD or so his words did pass away until they got written down if in fact word = scripture is true. See if you can wrap your brain around my point. Thanks.

Not sure if that helps or hurts the case for Tradition…being they were written down then we have a bible that is infallable

 

[TraditonRules]

If you use Scripture to prove Scripture is infallible, it would be a circular argument.

A circular argument by definition is a logical fallacy.

I accept Scripture as authoritative only because I accept the canon of Scripture as authoritative. The canon of Scripture is “Tradition”.

Everyone that accepts Scripture is accepting Tradition, whether they realize it or not.

Hope that helps
Peace
David

Basically your premise is , it is unreasonable to insist that words of the apostles that were not written down are more clear than the ones they did write. We all know from experience that this is not so.

 

[David]

Basically your premise is , it is unreasonable to insist that words of the apostles that were not written down are more clear than the ones they did write. We all know from experience that this is not so.

I apologize, but I do not understand what you mean. We can have different experiences.
Peace
David

 

[Ambrosian]

The one all-defeating question to ask of the Protestants on the pillar of Sola Scriptura is: “what about the seven books?”

Martin Luther (may God rest his tortured soul), originator of this sola, laid claim to having done two things:

1. Restoring the faith of the early, institutional Church (pre- 600 AD)
2. Restoring the true scriptures (66 vs. 73)

… however, if he accomplished 1, he could not have accomplished 2, and vice versa.

The early Church defined the Canon of 73 books of scripture before St. Augustine died. This was done in 393 and 397 in separate councils approved by the Popes.

Luther, followed by Calvin, insisted that the true Church had one last good pope: St. Gregory the Dialogist (the Great). Using Luther’s logic, the popes and Church from 33-600 AD are pure, and those of the roughly 900 year period before Luther’s time were increasingly corrupt and obscurantist about the faith. He truly believed, however, that the early Church was the true Church of Christ, and believed himself to be taking part in its restoration. Why, then, did he reject those books of the Bible which had been accepted as God-breathed Scripture by the same early Church he so worshiped?

Either Luther contradicts the early Church, or he contradicts the scriptures. Both of his most important claims are indefensible if taken together, in context. One cannot say he is in the process of restoring the early Church, and simultaneously remove 7 books from the very scriptures which the same early Church had declared divinely-inspired - long before Luther’s supposed millennium-long fallow period.

To summarise the point: if our total, absolute, signed and sealed source of revelation is the Holy Scriptures alone, not one word should be removed from them. To do so is a sacrilege against the Almighty Holy Sacred Immortal. This is exactly what the Luther Bible and the King James Bible do, insanely contrary to their own stated principle. That’s the madness of all this: Luther stated X, then immediately stated Y by his actions.

To say that one is merely removing 7 books that were erroneously considered to be scripture for 1100+ years (by all the greatest fathers, saints, and bishops who Luther so loved) is to say that the early Church was not really the true Church, not truly trustworthy in anything. After that, where is the trustworthy peace of Christ? Where is the Lord? Where is God? Dead.