How do protestants defend sola scriptura?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul1998
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah, so basically they were directed by God to write the books, but God took a hands-off approach to their contents?
 
You still don’t understand what I am saying. An account of true events is kind of the key phrase here. God didn’t “tell them” what happened. They saw with their own eyes what happened. That was really all I was trying to say. Of course, taken out of context intended, what I said could be taken very wrong so I am sorry if I caused you any confusion.
 
Oh, I think you’re misunderstanding me now. I’m not saying that God told them what happened. I’m saying that God ensured that their accounts, and the interpretations of the accounts presented in the books, were correct. That is what is meant when we say that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. After all, Paul’s letters are primarily instructions, not accounts. So if we don’t accept that Paul’s work was inspired by God, then we have to view it as merely a set of suggestions.
 
I 100% agree with you, I was not contradicting that at all. I did state that I was not talking about the whole of the bible or not even all of the New Testament. I also do believe that God was behind all the instructions in the Bible. I think we were both talking about a different variant of the word “inspire”.
What I was trying to say was that Paul had written in his own words what God had revealed to him. (You will notice that if you read my first comment again closely). I do believe that the Bible is the ‘Word of God’ as well. So I guess you did understand what I meant. I also apologize for taking the word “inspire” slightly out of context. Let me know if what I said makes sense to you.
 
Yeah, that makes more sense.

But it still leaves open the question of why we treat these books as scripture but not other contemporaneous writings.
 
I have an answer to that question but this is not the time/place to discuss it.
 
Maybe not the time, but this is definitely the place, seeing as the question at hand is how to justify sola scriptura. I mean, you literally brought up this point in response to the question of how we know what books constitute scripture if scripture doesn’t include a list of them.
 
I guess I could say simply/loosely that God showed Paul something, then Paul wrote it down, making it essentially God’s truth. I don’t have time to go into the specifics of how we know that Paul didn’t make it up, or that Paul didn’t twist the truth. But that isn’t the point here.
 
Cachonga . . . .
In regard to Traditions, didn’t Jesus show us in Mark 7:1-13 how to test traditions, whether they are from God or man?
Click to expand...
.

To the readers here. Don’t be fooled by such ideas
MARK 7:3 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition (Greek = paradosin) of the elders;
Click to expand...
2nd THESSALONIANS 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (Greek = paradoseis) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Click to expand...
Why?

Because . . . .
  • Such ideas forgot to tell you that there are GOOD traditions AND BAD traditions.
  • Such ideas also forgot to tell you that the BIBLE is referred to as a TRADITION–IN the Bible (“by letter” as 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 explicitly states).
  • Such ideas necessitate forgetting to tell you that oral AND written tradition are commanded to be held fast to. (Likewise see 2nd Thessalonians 2:15)
  • Such ideas fail to mention WHY Mark’s Gospel or Isaiah (in the Mark citation) is inspired to begin with (I agree it is, but I might not agree with the “WHY” sola Scriptura followers would come up with).
  • Lastly sola Scriptura ideas will never mention that Isaiah itself was written in ONLY consonants, so ORAL tradition was NECESSARY to even pass on Isaiah effectively.
    Isaiah (which was cited by Mark 7) has proverbial “built-in” oral tradition because ancient Hebrew was a consonantal language as far as writing was concerned!
 
Last edited:
HopkinsReb said:
Most Protestants think that we were given a Bible and should build a church around it, rather than that we were given a church and then that church built a Bible around itself.
Click to expand...
This is a clever misrepresentation of what Protestants believe. Protestants believe that God revealed himself throughout history in many ways. In ancient times he revealed himself through his word as spoken through the prophets and recorded in the scriptures. Then in the fulfillment of time he revealed himself through the Word Incarnate in his son Jesus Christ. He continued to reveal himself through the Holy Spirit, inspiring the apostles and their followers to faithfully record God’s Word so that it might be handed down generation to generation. We believe that the Church is the congregation of saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. So in that sense, the Word came first, and the Church (through the Holy Spirit working through the Word) was built around it. What norms the teaching and proclamation of that word are the Holy Scriptures because they represent the faithful passing down of that Word revealed by God. When we say Sola Scriptura, this means that the teaching of the Church regarding God’s Word is normed by what has been handed down through the scriptures, and that teachings that contradict those scriptures are not normative because they are not faithful to God’s Word. I hope this clarifies.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
40.png
HopkinsReb:
Most Protestants think that we were given a Bible and should build a church around it, rather than that we were given a church and then that church built a Bible around itself.
Click to expand...
This is a clever misrepresentation of what Protestants believe. Protestants believe that God revealed himself throughout history in many ways. In ancient times he revealed himself through his word as spoken through the prophets and recorded in the scriptures. Then in the fulfillment of time he revealed himself through the Word Incarnate in his son Jesus Christ. He continued to reveal himself through the Holy Spirit, inspiring the apostles and their followers to faithfully record God’s Word so that it might be handed down generation to generation. We believe that the Church is the congregation of saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. So in that sense, the Word came first, and the Church (through the Holy Spirit working through the Word) was built around it. What norms the teaching and proclamation of that word are the Holy Scriptures because they represent the faithful passing down of that Word revealed by God. When we say Sola Scriptura, this means that the teaching of the Church regarding God’s Word is normed by what has been handed down through the scriptures, and that teachings that contradict those scriptures are not normative because they are not faithful to God’s Word. I hope this clarifies.
Click to expand...
Lots of Protestants don’t even believe in Sacraments, and lots don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, so we’re both painting with a broad brush here.

But yes, the Catholics agree that the Word came first and the Church was built around it (and established by the Word made flesh). But the Word and the Bible are not synonymous. The Church predates the Bible.

I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement from Catholics that the church should be built around the Word of God. What they’ll disagree about is the restrictive definition of the Word of God given by Sola Scriptura Protestants.
 
HopkinsReb said:
But yes, the Catholics agree that the Word came first and the Church was built around it (and established by the Word made flesh). But the Word and the Bible are not synonymous. The Church predates the Bible.
Click to expand...
I agree that the Word and the Bible are not necessarily synonymous. It is also irrelevant. As stated in my initial response, the scripture represent the God-breathed record of God’s revelation and were given to us for the purpose of providing an enduring and faithful transmission of the testimony about that Word. So if your alternate source of doctrinal authority contradicts or violates that testimony, then it is objectively demonstrable that you aren’t being faithful. Keep in mind that the original use of Sola Scriptura was a refutation of doctrines that were contradictory to Sacred Scripture. Also, I would point out that the “restricted” definition is a false definition of what Sola Scriptura means. If someone is using it in a way which is contrary to what the doctrine means, they aren’t representing it correctly, so your apologetic in opposition to this definition is attacking a straw man. The issue here is that Roman Catholic apologist almost always misrepresent what Sola Scriptura means (usually in ignorance, but often quite purposefully).
 
Last edited:
Karl Keating’s explanation in his book ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism’ is quite good. He says that we should first approach the Bible as a collection of human documents. These works explain how Jesus rose from the dead and how Jesus founded a Church upon the Apostles. He gave to these men authority, as we see in Matthew 16:18-19 and in Ephesians 2:20. Jesus promised the Apostles that “He who hears you, hears me.” This authoritative Church would later declare that certain books were inspired by God and were to be included in the Canon of Scripture. This was decided at the Synod of Hippo, I believe in the fourth century.
 
Thank you all for your replys. I had the pleasure to debate this issue with some, let’s call them regular protestants (not very aware of this whole sola scriptura debate). The result was that they got stuck. They couldn’t defend it. They accuse us that we have man-created traditions, but they don’t know that sola scriptura is also a , way of men". So people, i hope with the help of this site that we will all become better apologists so that we will have the knowledge to defend our Holly Catholic and Apostolic Church!
 
Hodos . . . .
When we say Sola Scriptura, this means that the teaching of the Church regarding God’s Word is normed by what has been handed down through the scriptures, and that teachings that contradict those scriptures are not normative because they are not faithful to God’s Word.
Click to expand...
The problem with this Hodos, is that I know too mamy Bible Christians with a much more narrow definition than this.

The other issue of course is, your definition is not to be found within Scripture.

And whose interpretation of Scripture? My old Baptist minister who says they use the Bible ALONE to DENY infant Baptism? Or my Dad’s old Lutheran minister who likewise says HE uses the Bible ALONE to AFFIRM infant Baptism?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top