How do Protestants defend "Sola Scriptura"?

[Rosie12]

Sola Scriptura seems like a ridiculous sacred tradition concocted by Martin Luther. There are verses all over the bible which MUST be ignored in order for Sola Scriptura to be viable.

Example: Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

There is a really nice discussion on this topic here: scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

Sola Scriptura has resulted in a multitude of fun and exciting new gospels that help people feel proud of themselves that they are so smart to have figured it all out. Meanwhile, while these folks are having their fun, innocent people are confused as a result. Sola Scripture is pure evil. As Delenn famously reminds us, “A half truth is the worst kind of lie.”

So… any Protestants out there interested in a debate on this?

 

[NewsTheMan]

They defend it using the Bible

^ Half joke, half serious.

 

[Rosie12]

They defend it using the Bible

^ Half joke, half serious.

Haha… very funny.

Just to be clear, they use the Bible that the Catholics assembled from the sacred texts written in scrolls, and preserved through the centuries… till it was modified by the Luther et al. crowd… that Bible? >.>

 

[babylonsfalling]

How do Protestants defend “Sola Scriptura”?

Very poorly.

 

[Cat]

Very well. Do not make any smug assumptions about Protestant apologetics for sola Scriptura. Yes, the average Protestant-on-the-street will stumble around and look foolish in this debate, but if you meet up with the right teacher or apologist, you will be involved in a tough fight, and it will be YOU who stumbles around and looks very foolish. Do not make the serious error of assuming that this is an easy battle for Catholics to win. Always remember that Protestants have been willingly martyred because of their commitment to this doctrine. And many Catholics who didn’t believe in sola Scriptura are now enthusiastic members of Protestant churches after hearing or reading a good sola Scriptura apologist.

Here’s a link to a book about sola Scriptura that some claim is the best apologetic available. ligonier.org/store/disputations-on-holy-scripture-hardcover/ I haven’t read it–not interested in this debate. But if you are interested in learning more about how Protestants defend sola Scriptura, this sounds like a good place to start. I would recommend reading what Protestants recommend. Don’t think you can just read Catholic apologetics against sola Scriptura to prepare for this debate. Read and listen to the other side. You have to know your “enemy” to defeat it.

I found this link on the Ligonier Ministries website, which is a ministry headed by R.C. Sproul, who is one of the best and sharpest of the Protestant (Calvinist) teachers.

He is also extremely fair to Catholics, and has not made any mistatements about Catholicism that we have heard. On the contrary, Pastor Sproul will often correct common Protestant misconceptions about Catholicism and he does it with grace and charity, not cynicism or sarcasm.

My husband listens to him regularly on the radio and owns several CD sets by Pastor Sproul. R.C. Sproul is worth paying attention to if you are a Catholic apologist or are interested in Catholic apologetics. I would love to hear Tim Staples or Scott Hahn debate with Pastor Sproul, but to be honest, I think the Catholics would have quite a battle, and would possibly come out very bruised.

In case you’re wondering, my husband and I have utterly rejected the doctrine of sola Scriptura. I personally believe that this hideous doctrine was forged in hell by Satan himself, and is the route that many people walk to end up in hell, both figuratively on this earth, and literally in the afterlife. Although as an ex-Protestant, I admit to missing certain aspects of Protestantism (e.g., the good music, the friendly people, the teetotalling culture, etc.), I do not harbor ANY sentimental attachments to sola Scriptura–it nearly destroyed our lives and souls. It is a curse. Thank God for the Catholic Church, which teaches the truth about the Bible and the Authority of our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[Izdaari]

Implicit in the OP is that all Protestants believe in sola scriptura. Well, most do, but by no means all. I am prima scriptura in the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition, and I like to apply the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which involves using in addition to Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. Scripture is primary of course, but those other factors often shed considerable light on it.

 

[Radical]

Sola Scriptura seems like a ridiculous sacred tradition concocted by Martin Luther.

I don’t hold to the flavor of SS put forward by Luther…he was still “too Catholic”.

There are verses all over the bible which MUST be ignored in order for Sola Scriptura to be viable.

Example: Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

You do realize that things aren’t the same as when the apostles were still here on earth, right? It is one thing to claim SS is the situation today and quite another to claim that SS was always the way it was. I don’t hold to the latter…I don’t think any one does. From over here it seems terribly obvious that the Tradition of the Catholic Church contains error…it is only a question of how much. I wouldn’t reciprocate and categorize the erroneous Catholic Traditions as “hideous doctrine(s) forged in hell by Satan himself”…if Satan was handling the matter himself, then I would suspect that he would have done a less obvious job of it. Assuming that you hold to a traditional Catholic POV, we agree that scripture contains a reliable record of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Since Tradition is so obviously flawed, Scripture is “sola” unless you can find something else that possesses a reliability equal to its.

Sola Scriptura has resulted in a multitude of fun and exciting new gospels that help people feel proud of themselves that they are so smart to have figured it all out. Meanwhile, while these folks are having their fun, innocent people are confused as a result. Sola Scripture is pure evil. As Delenn famously reminds us, “A half truth is the worst kind of lie.”
So… any Protestants out there interested in a debate on this?

are you prepared to refrain from making any further insulting remarks? …such as the bits that I have emboldened? Tell me that I am wrong, but you don’t have to label me (or mine) in the process.

 

[Lincoln7]

Sola Scriptura means Scripture is viewed as the ultimate authority for the faith. It does not therefore ignore tradition or the Church in discerning truth, rather both of these are subject to God-Breathed scripture.(1)

As for it being a concoction of Dr. Martin Luther, several noted fathers spring to mind who also appear to have upheld its sufficiency for matters pertaining to the faith, as Sola Scriptura means. St.Athanasius for example - “For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth…” (Against the Heathen) (2)

The Catholic “Material sufficiency” view seems to come close to it, but still stresses the need for an infallible guide, the position of the majority of the various Protestant traditions stress this is not needed. With Material sufficiency, I always see the Catholic Church showing the sufficiency of scripture to the extent no external, unwritten apostolic tradition is needed, seems its all in scripture anyway? At least thats my perception, im always up for some discussion

As for the Acts 20 quote “It is better to give than recieve”. Firstly - Amen! Moving on; Does the Catholic Church know of any others not recorded in Scripture? Continuing, St.Luke in the opening of his Gospel - Luke 1:3-4

“It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.” (Douay Rheims) (3)

Here St.Luke appears to suggest that with scripture, Christ’s words are solidified in a “veritable” or “truthful” way, that the truth may be reliably known in an unchanging way. This passage seems rather unnecessary to me unless by it he means before writing scripture they didnt have this truth with absolute certainty? It does i am happy to agree, show that St. Luke here can also be shown to affirm that before his Book they had the same truths, but as ive already stated, its now told to Theophilus that all is now solidified in writing, in an unchanging way.

As for the classic “how does a Protestant know which books belong in the bible?” - How does a Catholic? Obviously from the pronouncements of the Council of Trent. Before Trent? The councils of Rome and Carthage are often used here, but after a basic analysis, it is clear these councils were not ones regarded as infallible and ecumenical, rather, local ones.(4) In effect, no infallible pronouncement until Trent, after the Reformation was well under way. Rather the early Church recognised the books already authoritative in themselves, the Scriptures are authoritative not because the Church says what books they are, but because they are God-Breathed.(5)

That’s just some of my thoughts on the topic. Sola Scriptura does not mean I abandon tradition or church, rather Scripture is viewed by mainline Protestants as the ultimate authority over them.

Hope I have added to the discussion in a charitable way, thats how i would begin to defend SS. Forgive if I also am slow to respond to anything, I wanted to make a basic response but may not have the time to keep checking for responses.

In Christ, have a blessed day.

Lincs

Footnotes:

1. 39 Articles of Religion
2. newadvent.org/fathers/2801.htm
   3 biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201&version=DRA
3. newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
4. In Understanding be men, TC Hammond, IVP, 1968, pg 28

 

[Cat]

See what I mean?

I think one of the biggest mistakes that enthusiastic Catholics make is to underestimate the intelligence of Protestants.

Yes, many of us know a redneck Christian who seems to know only a few verses of Scripture and a lot of catch-phrases, and has an arsenal of incorrect perceptions about Catholicism.

But these people are the very small minority of Protestants.

I mentioned John Ortberg in my earlier post. I grew up with John, and back when we were teenagers, he was more knowledgeable about Christianity, and more articulate, than many grown men. I’ve only had short correspondence with him in recent years since his rise to fame, but I can only imagine the depth of wisdom and intelligence in this man after so many years of reading, studying, and pastoring.

He’s just one example. There are so many other very knowledgeable Protestant teachers and preachers.

So don’t make the mistake of underestimating them, or base your opinions about Protestants on the one igmo that you know personally.

Finally, I have to agree that some Catholics have a very low opinion of Protestants and seem willing to express some rather insulting implications. I would suggest that every Catholic who wants to see Protestants converted should first get to know some Protestants. I think that many Catholics will discover that Protestants love Jesus and are seeking His will and His holiness in their own lives, and are quite devout in their walk with God.

 

[Nicea325]

You do realize that things aren’t the same as when the apostles were still here on earth, right?

Yeah…and Protestanism also did not exist either with its array of flavors and beliefs.

It is one thing to claim SS is the situation today and quite another to claim that SS was always the way it was. I don’t hold to the latter…I don’t think any one does.

SS in time and space makes no difference,it was no where taught by God.

From over here it seems terribly obvious that the Tradition of the Catholic Church contains error…it is only a question of how much.

Name them and provide evidence they contain error.

I wouldn’t reciprocate and categorize the erroneous Catholic Traditions as “hideous doctrine(s) forged in hell by Satan himself”…if Satan was handling the matter himself, then I would suspect that he would have done a less obvious job of it.

I would not call it Satanic in origin,but seriously flawed.

Assuming that you hold to a traditional Catholic POV, we agree that scripture contains a reliable record of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Since Tradition is so obviously flawed, Scripture is “sola” unless you can find something else that possesses a reliability equal to its.

Well if Tradition is obviously flawed,then how can you make Scripture exempt when scripture itself is Tradition simply penned?

 

[Hail_Linus]

I don’t hold to the flavor of SS put forward by Luther…he was still “too Catholic”.

This really confuses me about certain Protestants. Many seem to have a competition to be as far from Catholicism as possible.

The problem with your statement is that another Protestant may feel you are still too Catholic.

In fact if you celebrate Christmas or Easter, there are Christians that would say you are too Catholic.

 

[Nicea325]

This really confuses me about certain Protestants. Many seem to have a competition to be as far from Catholicism as possible.

The problem with your statement is that another Protestant may feel you are still too Catholic.

In fact if you celebrate Christmas or Easter, there are Christians that would say you are too Catholic.

More important, I doubt Radical rejects the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation? Are they too “Catholic” in nature for him?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Sola Scriptura means Scripture is viewed as the ultimate authority for the faith. It does not therefore ignore tradition or the Church in discerning truth, rather both of these are subject to God-Breathed scripture.

If Scripture is the ultimate authority, which is unbiblical, then why, when examining scripture alone, do the scriptures states the opposite of this opinion? What is more logical to assume then? Scripture that states the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth or someone’s unbiblical opinion that scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[Radical]

Yeah…and Protestanism also did not exist either with its array of flavors and beliefs.

right…there was no need to protest against corruptions that had yet to be introduced. There wasn’t a Counter-Reformation either at that time…

SS in time and space makes no difference,it was no where taught by God.

space?..so it isn’t a Vulcan doctrine then? Time is, however, very relevant. Until tradition was corrupted it enjoyed a level of reliability that it no longer possesses.

Name them and provide evidence they contain error.

well, why not start with the Catholic Marian doctrines that aren’t put forward in the NT, aren’t put forward in the Apostolic Fathers and only start to show up with works such as the Protoevangelium of James? But if you want to argue about Mary, I would suggest starting a different thread.

Well if Tradition is obviously flawed,then how can you make Scripture exempt when scripture itself is Tradition simply penned?

To start with, one can trace the (most of, arguably all of the) books of the NT back to the first century. Second, Christ distinguished between scripture and tradition.

 

[Radical]

This really confuses me about certain Protestants. Many seem to have a competition to be as far from Catholicism as possible.

it isn’t about being as far from Catholicism as possible…it is about being as close to the truth as possible.

The problem with your statement is that another Protestant may feel you are still too Catholic.

In fact if you celebrate Christmas or Easter, there are Christians that would say you are too Catholic.

and? There are Catholics who think Vatican II wasn’t Catholic enough. Opinions differ.

 

[Nicea325]

If Scripture is the ultimate authority, which is unbiblical, then why, when examining scripture alone, do the scriptures states the opposite of this opinion? What is more logical to assume then? Scripture that states the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth or someone’s unbiblical opinion that scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth?

More important, if scripture is the final authority,I have yet to read anything in the Bible where it explicitly says it?

 

[Radical]

More important, I doubt Radical rejects the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation? Are they too “Catholic” in nature for him?

I wouldn’t claim them to be infallible…the bits about the Father and Son possessing the same substance are from greek philosophy…what is the “substance” of the Father? Seems like odd terminology to me.

 

[Lincoln7]

If Scripture is the ultimate authority, which is unbiblical, then why, when examining scripture alone, do the scriptures states the opposite of this opinion? What is more logical to assume then? Scripture that states the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth or someone’s unbiblical opinion that scripture is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Hi Trevor Stamm, thanks for the discussion.

I would make the case here I do not see scripture making an “opposite” claim. I dont see this as being supported.

Pillar and foundation of the truth - Amen! How exactly though? I would see this as such because it preaches apostolic doctrine, built upon Christ and his Apostles. Hence Ephesians 2:20 How do i know it remains this Pillar, because it teaches what the Apostles taught, their doctrine, doctrine we know of as it is taught in Scripture. teachings i look to scripture for. Thats how i see this anyway as would most Protestants i know.

Thus i wholly affirm the Church is the PIllar and Foundation of the Truth, because to my eye it preaches what the Apostles preached, which we know from their writings.

Hence St. Thomas Aq -* “And we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.”* (1) Thus The Church is this pillar, due to its doctrine, doctrine derived to me from scripture, as Aquinas here affirms.

Hoping the “tone” of this sounds charitable, im seeking only to put out an interpretation and answer any questions.

In Christ.

Lincs

Footnotes:
1 - St.Thomas Aquinas, dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer14.htm#10

 

[Nicea325]

Hence St. Thomas Aq - “And we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.” (1) Thus The Church is this pillar, due to its doctrine, doctrine derived to me from scripture, as Aquinas here affirms.

Hoping the “tone” of this sounds charitable, im seeking only to put out an interpretation and answer any questions.

In Christ.

Are you claiming Aquinas believed and defended the Bible-Only? Not in a million years did he defend such a bogus belief. Doctrine did not derive solely out of scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

I wouldn’t claim them to be infallible…the bits about the Father and Son possessing the same substance are from greek philosophy…what is the “substance” of the Father? Seems like odd terminology to me.

Really? So they are flawed? So God is actually four people? Maybe five? Only one as Jehovah Witnesses believe? What about the NT canon? Is that also fallible to you?

Greek philosophy? So tell me which is the correct philosophy?