How do protestants defend sola scriptura?

[VeryBlessed]

In a sense, everybody (Catholic or non-Catholic Christian) puts sacred scripture and sacred tradition on equal footing. The real question is, what is your sacred tradition source? Is it me alone? Or is it rooted in the opinions of a particular person - Luther or Calvin or Joseph Smith or Darby or Ellen White? Sola scriptura applied to its literal meaning must inevitably destroy the unity of any church, because the alone part means that I will never be in complete agreement with anybody. How could Jesus have meant us to operate as his church like that? I want a magisterium that is far bigger than me, and bigger than any of the people I named above.

 

[porthos11]

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17 NASB). What else is “inspired by God”? Where do we find traditions (even “Sacred” ones) spoken of as being “inspired by God”? 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? It is worth noting that Jesus tested the “tradition of the elders” (which they believed was directly from Moses, and hence, a “Sacred Tradition”) against Scripture (which He called “the word of God”). Have you ever tested your “Sacred Traditions” against the written word of God?

That’s part of why I believe in Sola Scriptura, and why I am no longer Catholic. Hope this helps!

Why should we believe 2 Timothy? What is its authority?

 

[c1949]

In his book, The Reformation 500 years Later: 12 Things You Need to Know, Ben Wiker attributes sola scriptura to atheist Marsilius of Padua (in a book called Defensor Pacis, 1242) , not for philosophical reasons but for political ones, with the goal of subordinating the Church to the State. Martin Luther undoubtedly picked up the matnra of s.s. for the same reason, to belittle the Catholic Church.

Exegesis is the interpretation of scripture as it is written. Eisogesis is the interpretation of scripture the way you want it to be understood. Luther and the Protestants did the latter, also agreeing with Marcilius on the subordination of the Church to the State, as later occurred in Europe. Marcilius came up with sola scriptura more than 200 years before Luther picked up the argument.

Virtually all Protestants use Luther’s Bible, the subset of sacred writings that Luther approved. That’s a man-made tradition if there ever was one.

 

[Hope1960]

I don’t understand how Protestants can hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura either, given that it is refuted so easily in more than one way.

How? What are the refutations?

 

[semper_catholicus]

Well, for starters, it’s self-refuting. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible. Second, as someone already pointed out, the question of where the Bible came from also comes to mind. There was not a proper Bible for a while after Christ’s Ascension.

 

[njlisa]

What follows is a description of my experience in a solo scriptura church. Keep in mind that I was received into the Catholic Church in 1990. This is not a theological argument.

As a Southern Baptist, I grew up without training in church history. Looking back, I believe my church sought to strip away any **authority above the believer. We had no hierarchy. We were all equal before the Word of God. As such, the Bible was our sole source of revelation. Organized weekly Bible study was ongoing.

Although I have entered the true Church, I would never spurn my upbringing. It made me who I am today. I still miss Sunday school.

**In reality, we weren’t equal before the Word. A child could never challenge their teacher, much less the pastor. Women were to be silent in the church and thus could not make any noise except to sing and give responses during readings of the Psalms.

 

[guanophore]

I found the sola scriptura doctrine a little bit funny and obviously wrong. I am very curious if there is any protestants here or other people aware of how they defend this fallacious doctrine.

One starting place is to “assume” the canon. That way, rather than having to engage in why we have a list of books that belong in the Bible that is not contained in the Bible, they can focus on other issues. They stipulate that God was able to guide the errant Church into defining the canon.

There is actually quite a bit of support in the fathers for this point of view, since the Church has always had a high view of the Scriptures. It must be taken out of context, but it can be used to support this doctrine.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17 NASB).

First of all, Paul wrote this about the Septuagint, which no Christian today would confine themselves to as a source for the faith. Second, who does Paul say is responsible for all that teaching, reproof and correction?

“The gifts He gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.” Eph. 4:11-13

Yes, Scripture is profitable in the hands of those that God has ordained for these ministries. Jesus did not design His Church so that someone could sit down with a book and try to figure it all out for themselves.

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.” Titus 2:15

Where does this authority originate? If Scripture is all they needed, why appoint a bishop and instruct him to exhort and reprove with all authority?

What else is “inspired by God”?

Jesus breathed into His fledgling Church.

“When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” John 20:22

 

[otrrl]

Post 23 continued: The fundamental argument against sola scriptura is, by what authority did Martin Luther decide that some of the OT writings shouldn’t be in the Bible. First, he relegated them to the back of the Bible he produced (as I’ve read), then others dropped the writings completely.

Where was the authority for all that? …certainly not in the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

Where do we find traditions (even “Sacred” ones) spoken of as being “inspired by God”?

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Why would the Apostle command them to “hold firm” to human customs? Why does the Apostle equate the Word of God they received by mouth to that which is by letter?

“We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.”
1 Thessalonians 2:13

This is the origin of Sacred Tradition. It is the teaching of the Apostles, infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus tested the “tradition of the elders” (which they believed was directly from Moses, and hence, a “Sacred Tradition”)

No.

People’s opinions about the origin of their practices does not equate to them coming from God.

Hope this helps!

Thank you! I think you are in a lot of company on these viewpoints.

 

[guanophore]

I think most Protestants refuse to look hard at what the Bible is and the source of its authority, because doing so would force them to accept that, at least at some point, the Catholic Church was a source of infallible authority. It’s one of the major issues that’s causing me to consider Catholicism.

Those that do look seriously have created a category for it. They call it a “fallible collection of infallible books”. This means it was composed by fallible persons (thus subject to error) but that the books God sovereignly allowed to be included are the right ones.

The idea that it’s untrue, or even that it might be directly contrary to the instructions given in scripture , might not have even crossed the typical Protestant’s mind.

This is a good point. It is taught along par with other Christian doctrines that are “self evident” but also not found in Scripture, like the word Trinity, the hypostatic union, the Holy Theotokos, diatheletism, worship on Sundays, celebration of Christmas etc, etc.

 

[rcwitness]

I think you’re misunderstanding where I fall on this. I think most Protestants refuse to look hard at what the Bible is and the source of its authority, because doing so would force them to accept that, at least at some point, the Catholic Church was a source of infallible authority. It’s one of the major issues that’s causing me to consider Catholicism.

But God is the source of all authority.

Actually, many Catholic leaders do not assume the authority they have. Its agreat responsibility to do so. It means sacrificing yourself. Investing your time and heart for people. Admonishing sin with gentleness and wisdom. Discerning spirits and confronting manipulative behavior.

Pastoring is a great responsibility of authority, which requires a great amount of humility.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cachonga cites 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 but these sola Scriptura ideas must ADD the word “ALONE” there (and expects you to do the same).

Sola Scriptura ideas necessitate to forget to tell you the context in the passage has to do with the Old Testament (Scriptures that St. Timothy knew “from childhood”). Yes by extension the verses are applicable to the New Testament although that is NOT in the passage.

Elsewhere in the Bible (the Letter of James) “Patience” makes the man of God complete.

People who follow sola Scriptura traditions also often forgot to tell you WHERE in the Bible it tells us 2nd Timothy is part of Scripture (or for that matter WHERE in the Bible is the whole Canon of Scripture listed).

Cachonga stated . . .

That’s part of why I believe in Sola Scriptura, and why I am no longer Catholic. Hope this helps!

Well these constant necessities by followers of the sola Scriptura tradition to ADD to Scripture when something is NOT there and SUBTRACT from Scripture when something inconvenient IS there . . . .

. . . . is exactly part of the reason why I DON’T believe in Sola Scriptura, and why I no longer attend my old Baptist fellowship. Hope this helps!

God bless.

Cathoholic

John Smyth | Christian History | Christianity Today

 

[manuginobili]

The answer to this question can become incredibly complicated by I am going to try to make this quick. The New Testament is, for the most part, an eyewitness account of things that the authors had seen or been through. Defending the reliability of the authors of the New Testament is a whole nother thing I am not going into today But the idea I guess I’m trying to point out is that in most of the books of the New Testament weren’t “inspired by God” they were actually eyewitness accounts of events. And in the case of the letters in the New Testament, they were actually true letters from one human being to another about things they had seen or accounts of what God had revealed to them. Of course one could argue that that could be “inspired by God” but it was not necessarily direct.

 

[HopkinsReb]

But the idea I guess I’m trying to point out is that in most of the books of the New Testament weren’t “inspired by God” they were actually eyewitness accounts of events.

Why does being an eyewitness account preclude being inspired by God?

 

[manuginobili]

I would also like to say that I do not agree with Chachonga’s argument because even I (a non-denominational) know that many of the ways I worship are based on tradition. Tradition isn’t a bad thing, it is actually a very vital factor. Of course, I am not saying that tradition is always correct either. Hopefully, you understand what I am trying to say.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The New Testament is, for the most part, an eyewitness account of things that the authors had seen or been through.

This is actually wrong. I know of at least 2 of the gospels being written not by actual disciples.

 

[manuginobili]

If you were to write an account of a murder you saw take place, it is possible that God inspired you to write about the murder but surely God did not inspire the murder itself. The New Testament isn’t a set of rules, it is the story of true events. Of course, I do believe that God inspired the authors to write it.

 

[manuginobili]

Note that I wrote “for the most part”.

 

[HopkinsReb]

If you were to write an account of a murder you saw take place, it is possible that God inspired you to write about the murder but surely God did not inspire the murder itself. The New Testament isn’t a set of rules, it is the story of true events. Of course, I do believe that God inspired the authors to write it.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. Are they inspired by God or not? Because earlier you said they’re not and that they’re just eyewitness accounts. But now you’re saying that you do believe that God inspired the authors to write them.

 

[manuginobili]

Sorry, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. God inspired them to write. The actual content was acoounts of true events that happened. Not a set of traditions that God “inspired”. I’m sorry if I did not clarify that I was speaking in a very specific context, and in a very loose manner.