Help on a conversation regarding Sola Scriptura

[jjordan]

I will admit that growing up in a predominantly Catholic community was poor preparation for living in the Bible Belt.

I am in the middle of a email discussion with a co-worker of mine on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

He is a born again Baptist and part of a small independent baptist church. He is also well read and has for the most part memorized the entire bible. The same cannot be said of me.

I consider this a great opportunity to learn and get to know my religion better.
So, I am asking for the help of this community in keeping my facts right and not misrepresenting the Church.

Here is the conversation so far:

*Myself: "Define Sola Scriptura as you know it. Seems to be many differing, though similar, understandings of this doctrine. "

Co-Worker: "Bible only… as my only true guide and final court or arbitration. Romans 3:4 – Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar. If a person says something that does not agree with the Bible, that person is wrong. "

Myself: " * 2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

• What would you consider this to mean?"*

Co-worker: "The apostolic writings are scripture (2 peter 3:16) Tradition was the setting up of churches and all things done decently and in order (1st Corinthians 14:40) if any of those traditions disagree with scripture, they are in error, apostolic teachings cannot contradict scripture because they are scripture being inspired by God (2nd Timothy 3:16-17) if they did, then they would not be inspired by God and would not be part of the canon of Scripture.*

• Scripture still reigns over all, for it is the Word of God."*

Now I am no scholar, but 2 Peter doesn’t seem to fit the argument. It is only stating that Paul’s writings are scripture, but can we be sure that Paul felt the same way about Peter’s? The disagreed on may subjects didn’t they?

If I am not mistaken, 1st Corinthians is about speaking in tongues and has nothing to do with scripture or tradition.

The 2nd Timothy reference comes closest to being a useful argument for scripture. However, it only states that scripture is useful. A hammer is useful for building stuff, but
I would not consider it the sole authority on building a house. (Is that a poor analogy?)

Would my observations be in the “spirit” of sola scriptura? or am I missing something?

Any help would be appreciated.

**
**

 

[tobinatorstark]

I will admit that growing up in a predominantly Catholic community was poor preparation for living in the Bible Belt.

I am in the middle of a email discussion with a co-worker of mine on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

He is a born again Baptist and part of a small independent baptist church. He is also well read and has for the most part memorized the entire bible. The same cannot be said of me.

I consider this a great opportunity to learn and get to know my religion better.
So, I am asking for the help of this community in keeping my facts right and not misrepresenting the Church.

Here is the conversation so far:

*Myself: "Define Sola Scriptura as you know it. Seems to be many differing, though similar, understandings of this doctrine. "

Co-Worker: "Bible only… as my only true guide and final court or arbitration. Romans 3:4 – Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar. If a person says something that does not agree with the Bible, that person is wrong. "

Myself: " * 2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

• What would you consider this to mean?"*

Co-worker: "The apostolic writings are scripture (2 peter 3:16) Tradition was the setting up of churches and all things done decently and in order (1st Corinthians 14:40) if any of those traditions disagree with scripture, they are in error, apostolic teachings cannot contradict scripture because they are scripture being inspired by God (2nd Timothy 3:16-17) if they did, then they would not be inspired by God and would not be part of the canon of Scripture.*

• Scripture still reigns over all, for it is the Word of God."*

Now I am no scholar, but 2 Peter doesn’t seem to fit the argument. It is only stating that Paul’s writings are scripture, but can we be sure that Paul felt the same way about Peter’s? The disagreed on may subjects didn’t they?

If I am not mistaken, 1st Corinthians is about speaking in tongues and has nothing to do with scripture or tradition.

The 2nd Timothy reference comes closest to being a useful argument for scripture. However, it only states that scripture is useful. A hammer is useful for building stuff, but
I would not consider it the sole authority on building a house. (Is that a poor analogy?)

Would my observations be in the “spirit” of sola scriptura? or am I missing something?

Any help would be appreciated.

**
**

You were right about 2 Thessalonians 2:14 on Sacred tradition. Sacred tradition can’t contradict scripture and it doesn’t. Anything that contradicts scripture would be heresy. 1 Corinthians 14:40 is about and verses are about preaching the Gospel in correct manner that distort God’s intention. Speaking in tongues is something I can’t talk about and don’t know too much in what all speaking in tongues entails. I don’t have that gift. Tradition is more than setting up the Churches. It has to deal with preaching the word, doing the will of God and imitating Christ. We follow Christ example when he commands us to do something like specifically the Eucharist. He asks us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. We do that in the Eucharist. Hope this helps some

 

[kursau]

I am a new Catholic (<1year) who converted from a Non-denominational sect that taught Sola Scriptura.

A few things that helped me get past it:

1. Sola Scriptura isn’t even taught in the Bible, so how do you get around that?
2. The Bible, which is what one is basing Sola Scriptura on, was based and put together by the early Catholic church that was organized by its traditions when it didn’t have the Bible to use as a guide.

That’s the biggest thing that irks me now about people arguing for Sola Scriptura: they ignore the history of how the Bible came about. They are basically taking the Bible and running with it (but out of the context of history!) while ignoring the tradition that went into its completion.

He may know his Bible well, but I would press him on history. If he uses the King James version of the bible, ask him why they decided to remove the Deuterocanonical books less than 200 years ago

cheers,

 

[OchsFam]

The 2nd Timothy reference comes closest to being a useful argument for scripture. However, it only states that scripture is useful. A hammer is useful for building stuff, but I would not consider it the sole authority on building a house. (Is that a poor analogy?)

I think the analogy is strong as the Bible could very easily be seen as a tool used to grow in Christ. The Church, communion of saints and prayer would be other tools. You could say the Church is the place where you learn how to use the hammer in this analogy.

Would my observations be in the “spirit” of sola scriptura? or am I missing something?

I am sure this wouldn’t be the first time he has heard it, but you should ask him what the “pillar and foundation of truth” is? The Bible? See 1 Tim 3:16 for what the Bible tells us the pillar and foundation of truth is. So, if someone wants to truly believe Sola Scriptura, they should be going to their church for the truth not the Bible because as he pointed out in 2 Peter 3:16, the ignorant will twist the book to their own destruction.

You may also ask for the source of his Sola Scriptura tradition. If the concept of scripture alone is the basis on which Christianity was meant to be established, it should say it somewhere in the Bible, right? If it isn’t in the Bible, it would be like us saying the Church is the foundation of truth if the Church didn’t claim itself to be this said foundation of truth.

If we are meant to test every belief against scripture, who’s interpretation? Which version as the Catholic Bible is much older and verified by Christians, not Jews? Why is it that adherers to Sola Scriptura are the only monotheistic religions that are accepting of divisions in theology? Does it even make sense to be monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time? If there is one God and one Word (the Bible) created and maintained by one divine author, why is there more than one acceptable understanding of this Word?

You may also wish to point out that we do believe that the Word of God indeed reigns over all, though we believe the Word of God is not just written, but oral. There are multiple indications of this like your 2 Thess verse (see also ScriptureCatholic.com).

What I see when I read the Bible is many indications that there will be a Church protected by God that guides us to all truth (Mt 16:18, Luke 22:31-32, 1 Tim 3:16, etc.) but not one indication that personal interpretation is acceptable. In fact I see the opposite being taught by scripture (2 Peter 3:16, Acts 8:30-31).

Finally, you may want to ask why God would send His only Son to save mankind from eternal damnation 1500 years before the Bible would have even been available to more than the very wealthy since that is the only way we can be saved. It was even longer before a significant percentage of the people could read (and thus get any use what-so-ever out of a Bible). If it is the Bible alone, God certainly did not wish to see billions of people in Heaven which is also contrary to scripture.

I think that would at least provide some scriptural arguments as well as some logical arguments. There are a lot more contradictions to Sola Scriptura to be found, but you can post again when he gets to those straws.

God Bless.